ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Heavy-lift Helicopters

Harriett Baldwin: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of his Department’s heavy-lift helicopter capability.

Philip Dunne: Over the next 10 years, the Ministry of Defence will spend over £12 billion to ensure our helicopter capability remains up to date. The Chinook remains our heavy-lift helicopter. We currently have a fleet of 46 aircraft—the second largest fleet in the world—with 14 new aircraft coming into service from 2014, bringing the total to 60. We regularly review the requirement for all of our helicopter capability.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Minister for that answer and ask him what steps have been taken to develop a naval capability for the Chinook helicopter.

Philip Dunne: Chinooks, along with other helicopters, already regularly operate from royal naval vessels. Some specific training is needed to qualify crews to enable them to operate from ships, but no specific engineering work is required for Chinooks to embark on or fly from ships, so no marinisation programme is needed. But as Chinooks cannot fit in the hangar on any of our existing vessels, they embark for specific operations or exercises rather than for long deployments.

Keith Vaz: The Government of Yemen have specifically requested support, as far as air power is concerned, in order to defeat al-Qaeda. As the Minister knows, there was an attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister of Yemen over the weekend. What support can be given to Yemen, as far as heavy-lift helicopters are concerned?

Philip Dunne: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, helicopter support into the Gulf is not easy to do from the UK—or even from our sovereign bases in Cyprus. In direct response to his question about helicopters, I am afraid that I cannot enlighten him.

Tessa Munt: I want to ask the Secretary of State why there has been no response whatsoever to my letters to him and his Ministers dated January, February, April, June and July 2013, or to my letters to the head of the Military Aviation Authority, dated January, February, April and June, about a number of serious concerns raised by my constituent, Christopher Jackson, relating to the safety of the Sea King helicopter fleet and the conduct of a number of individuals involved in showing the safety of the fleet, which I understand is now the subject of a police investigation. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could investigate what has happened, and may I receive responses by return?

Philip Dunne: I am obviously not able to speak for the head of the Military Aviation Authority, which has its own organisation within the MOD, but I would be happy to look into the matter. I have not heard from the hon. Lady directly myself; I will take that on board and write back to her.

Nuclear Deterrent

Oliver Colvile: What assessment he has made of the cost and credibility of a nuclear deterrent based on a cruise missile system.

Philip Hammond: A range of cruise missile-based systems were examined as part of the recent Trident alternatives review. The evidence showed that any cruise missile option was more vulnerable and had significantly reduced reach compared with a Trident-based deterrent. Additionally, it would be more costly, requiring the design and development of a new warhead, as well as a new missile.

Oliver Colvile: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but will he give me a commitment that in any future negotiations with our coalition partners after the next general election, if by some misfortune no single party should gain an outright majority, our party would return a continuous-at-sea deterrent with four nuclear submarines?

Philip Hammond: The Government’s position is that we will maintain continuous-at-sea deterrence, and to do that we are preparing to go ahead at the main-gate decision in 2016 with the delivery of replacement submarines. I fear I would be straying beyond my remit if I were to speculate on negotiations that may or may not take place after the next election.

Jeremy Corbyn: What is the Secretary of State’s latest estimate of the cost of replacing both the warheads and the submarine system, ahead of the main-gate decision in 2016? Has he given further consideration to the possibility of us not renewing Trident in order to help bring about a nuclear-free world more rapidly rather than re-arming ourselves and thus delaying the possibility of a nuclear-free world?

Philip Hammond: On the last point, I think that history teaches us that unilateral abandonment of nuclear weapons is not the way to bring about a more rapid elimination of those weapons, much as we would all like to see that happen. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the estimates produced in the 2006 White Paper for the cost of replacing the existing submarines with a four-boat solution were between £15 billion and £20 billion—in terms of the 2006 economic conditions—and they remain unchanged.

Julian Lewis: In order that the Secretary of State does not keep having to tell us that he must not go above his pay grade, will he carry the message back to No. 10 that as Labour Front Benchers say they are willing to sign up to two of the four boats before the next election, and as the majority of people in this House would like to have that main-gate decision implemented at least in part, why should we not go ahead so that we cannot be blackmailed by the Liberal Democrats in the event of a hung Parliament after the general election?

Philip Hammond: I understand my hon. Friend’s point of view. He has on other occasions raised the issue of entering into a contract for the submarines at an early
	stage. Our current way of managing our equipment programme is to enter into contracts with industry at the point at which projects are mature enough to enable us to secure the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. Entering into a contract at this stage, when the project is relatively immature, would not represent value for money.

Trident Alternatives Review

Ben Wallace: What conclusions he has drawn from the Trident alternatives review about alternatives to a UK nuclear deterrent based on Trident.

James Morris: What conclusions he has drawn from the Trident alternatives review about alternatives to a UK nuclear deterrent based on Trident.

Christopher Pincher: What conclusions he has drawn from the Trident alternatives review about alternatives to a UK nuclear deterrent based on Trident.

Philip Hammond: The review demonstrates that no alternative system is as capable as a Trident-based deterrent, or as cost-effective.

Ben Wallace: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the dangers of the alternatives to Trident is that of mistaken identity? An intercontinental ballistic missile leaves a very distinct signature on launch, whereas the alternatives could be confused with conventional weapons, and hence trigger an escalation rather than a de-escalation of conflict.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Trident alternatives review makes clear that that is just one of the many drawbacks of a cruise-based system. The other primary drawbacks are the risk, the time scale for development, the likely cost, the lack of range, and the vulnerability of the weapons system.

James Morris: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when maintenance is taken into account, the cost differential between four boats and three boats is minimal, and that we should press ahead with a full replacement for Trident because it is in our national interest to do so?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend has conflated two different questions. The Trident alternatives review states categorically that Trident provides the best value and the best capability for the United Kingdom. As for the separate question of how many boats are needed, the Government are determined to maintain continuous-at-sea deterrence, and the best advice at present is that that will require four boats. The cost differential between three and four boats is about £1.7 billion in net present value terms, or about £50 million to £60 million a year over the life of the project.

Christopher Pincher: My right hon. Friend has already made a powerful case for Trident and for continuous-at-sea deterrence, but does he agree that other potential deterrents that have been mooted, such as an airborne deterrent,
	would also be expensive to implement? Moreover, an airborne deterrent would be prey to a pre-emptive strike—which means that it would be no deterrent at all—and would be considered objectionable by many people who do not want nuclear armed planes landing and taking off on their doorsteps.

Philip Hammond: Indeed. The nature of the United Kingdom, which is a relatively small and densely populated land mass, is one of the factors taken into account by the Trident alternatives review, and one of the reasons why the idea of land-based ballistic missiles was ruled out at an early stage. The review states clearly that all alternatives to Trident are less capable, higher-risk and more expensive. That strikes me as a pretty categorical conclusion.

David Hanson: Can the Secretary of State tell the House how much taxpayers’ money has been spent on the Liberal Democrat vanity project that is the Trident alternatives review, given that, by and large, both the Conservative part of the coalition and the Labour Opposition support the outcome and knew what it would be?

Philip Hammond: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the work on the review was conducted in-house, led by the Cabinet Office and supported by the Ministry of Defence, and that the principal cost involved will have been civil servants’ time. If he submits a written question to me, I will ask the Department to produce the best estimate that it can make of the time involved.

James Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we opted for an alternative to Trident, we should probably have to be out of the submarine building business altogether, and that that would pose a real risk to the national security of the country?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. It seems often to be forgotten by those who advocate an alternative that we must make a choice about whether to sustain a submarine building industry in the United Kingdom. I, for one, believe that it is essential to the UK’s strategic interest for us to maintain a submarine-building capability, and that further points to the use of a submarine-based continuous-at-sea deterrent.

Kevan Jones: The Government’s Trident alternatives review covered a large number of options and was described in this House by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as the “most comprehensive study” of our nuclear deterrent policy. Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to why the alternative being put forward now by the Liberal Democrats of two boats conducting irregular unarmed patrols was not considered as part of that comprehensive review?

Philip Hammond: The review considered a three-boat alternative and a four-boat alternative; it did not consider a two-boat position, as that was not considered a credible deterrent.

Armed Forces (Scotland)

William Bain: What assessment he has made of the contribution made by armed forces based in Scotland to the collective defence of the UK.

Andrew Murrison: Defence of the UK is planned, organised and resourced to meet the needs of the UK as a whole. Units based in Scotland are an integral part of the UK armed forces and, as such, make a vital contribution to national defence. Scotland, as part of the UK, plays a key role in all aspects of its defence, and benefits from the full range of UK defence capabilities and activities. It is perfectly clear that we are better together in defence, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the vast majority of those in this House will agree.

William Bain: Support for Scottish separation has fallen this morning to just 29%. Does the Minister agree that one reason for that is the lack of credibility of the nationalists on defence? Has he received any communication from the Scottish Government on how they propose to fund a standing army of 15,000 troops with a defence budget one tenth the size of this Government’s?

Andrew Murrison: The data that the hon. Gentleman has reported to the House come as no surprise to me. The straight answer to his question is no; we hear all sorts of rumours, but we await a White Paper from the Scottish Government—apparently, it will arrive at the end of this year—laying out more precisely than we have had thus far what they plan to do for national security and defence. It sounds, however, from the data that he has brought to the House that that will be highly hypothetical.

Troop Numbers (Afghanistan)

Bob Blackman: What progress he has made in drawing down the number of UK troops in Afghanistan to around 5,200 by the end of 2013.

Andrew Robathan: As the Prime Minister announced on 19 December 2012, UK force levels will reduce from 9,000 to 6,000 from this autumn, and to about 5,200 by the end of 2013. That figure may, of course, fluctuate and occasionally exceed this total due to temporary surges into theatre. Our force level reduction is in line with the draw-down plans of our NATO allies and reflects the progress of the Afghan national security forces in assuming overall security responsibility for the country.

Bob Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Clearly, I put on the record my salute to all those brave servicemen and women who have given their lives or been injured, and those who place their lives on the line every single day, in support of our security. The worst thing would be if we withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and then have to go back. Will he inform the House on what progress he is making on getting the ANSF to take over from our brave servicemen and women?

Andrew Robathan: As my hon. Friend will know, the focus of our armed forces is now on encouraging the ANSF and training, helping and mentoring them. We are very encouraged by the progress that we see. For instance, a major operation took place in the summer in the Logar and Nangarhar provinces, involving a large number of Afghan troops. It was very successful and it also demonstrated the increasing capability of the Afghan air force, so we are on track. Despite the scepticism of some, the ANSF are looking on track to assume responsibilities overall.

Seema Malhotra: Will the Minister also update the House on whether any decisions have been made on the post-2014 UK contribution to Afghanistan and when he will be able to share any likely numbers?

Andrew Robathan: I cannot share the exact numbers with the hon. Lady. What I can say is that our focus will definitely be on the Afghan national officer academy, which is just outside Kabul. We are very much concentrating on that, but of course we need to consider force protection and other issues, and the actual details cannot yet be given.

Jim Murphy: At a time when some commentators outside the House doubt the utility of UK military force, it is crucial that those from all parts of the House again put on the record our respect for the remarkable contribution that our men and women are making in Afghanistan.
	Let me return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), on which the Minister attempted an answer but did not give enough details. Will he say to the House in more detail what he understands to be the current commitment for UK equipment being retained in Afghanistan post-2014? When will the Government be in a position to share with the House the precise number of UK military personnel who will remain in theatre post-2014?

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about our armed forces, which, notwithstanding any excitements last week, are still doing an extremely good job in Afghanistan. I pay tribute to them as well.
	Our focus after the end of next year will most definitely be on the Afghan national army officer academy outside Kabul. I am afraid that I cannot yet give the right hon. Gentleman or the House details of equipment that we might be leaving behind or anything like that, but we expect to announce it by the end of the year.

Defence Equipment and Support

Jim Cunningham: What progress his Department has made in the assessment phase for reform of Defence Equipment and Support.

Philip Dunne: The Department continues to make good progress in the assessment phase for the reform of Defence Equipment and Support. As the hon. Gentleman
	is aware, we are testing a GoCo—Government owned, contractor operated—model in the market. Separately, we are working up the best public sector option we can, which we are referring to as DE&S-plus. The commercial competition for a GoCo provider is well under way and I am pleased to confirm that two consortia are participating in this work. The invitation to negotiate was issued to each on 24 July and officials have commenced negotiations to develop the GoCo option in more detail.

Jim Cunningham: Under the current plans, the MOD would be liable for claims against the contractor should a GoCo model be chosen, meaning that the taxpayer takes a large amount of risk. Would the MOD consider making the contractor liable for all claims instead?

Philip Dunne: The MOD is in the early stages of negotiations on the contract for a GoCo and, as I have said, is at the same time working up a DE&S-plus option. We will not make a decision until we have received bids from the consortia, which we expect to conclude in the spring of next year, and we will compare that against the DE&S-plus option. Only at that point will it be appropriate to consider the question that the hon. Gentleman asks.

Peter Luff: I appreciate that for sound commercial reasons the Minister will not want to share with the House the details of the value-for-money assessment of DE&S-plus and the GoCo. Is he able to tell the House whether that process has been completed and, if it has, what the broad conclusion is?

Philip Dunne: As I have just said to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), until we receive the bids for the GoCo option we will not know either the costs of implementing that option or the benefits the MOD will receive. The final value-for-money case can be completed only once that information is available to us.

Alison Seabeck: Proposals for DE&S include greater involvement of the private sector, as we know. We also know that a very large number of private companies already contribute significantly to MOD projects. However, in the light of the very recent public failures and the fact that the GoCo tender process is under way, will the Minister tell the House what discussions there have been across Government and with the Justice Secretary specifically about companies that have been found to overcharge, or worse, and their ability to do business with the Government and MOD in the future?

Philip Dunne: I can confirm to the hon. Lady that a review across Government is being undertaken into the competition currently being managed by the MOD. We expect it to report relatively soon. On the question of the company that she did not mention specifically but referred to as having difficulties with the Ministry of Justice, we are aware of those discussions. The company is a member of one of the consortia and it will be up to the consortium to decide whether it is appropriate, in the light of the outcome of the review, for that company to remain in it or not. It will be up to the consortium to replace it, if it wishes, with another.

Tony Baldry: Ministers will have to make a decision about whether to consolidate DE&S at Donnington or at Bicester. Unless and until they make that decision, it will not be easy to persuade the private sector to invest in much-needed new logistics equipment and 21st-century warehousing at either location.

Philip Dunne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pressing the case for his constituency interest in one of the most significant logistics sites the MOD operates. It is our view that it is not appropriate to prejudge the outcome of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, the logistic commodities and services transformation exercise, the DE&S-plus exercise or the Defence Support Group exercise, all of which have an involvement in both Donnington and Bicester. Once we are clear which entity we are working with on each exercise, we will be best placed to judge where the locations should be consolidated.

Trident Replacement

Edward Leigh: Whether his Department has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of a Trident replacement; and if he will make a statement.

Philip Hammond: A cost-benefit analysis of possible nuclear deterrent systems was carried out for the 2006 White Paper, “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent”. This demonstrated that a submarine-launched ballistic missile system based on Trident was the most cost-effective solution to the UK’s requirement. The recently published “Trident Alternatives Review” supports the judgments made in 2006 and demonstrates that the renewal of the current Trident-based system is the most cost-effective and capable nuclear deterrent for the UK.

Edward Leigh: Just because Trident is obviously the best new nuclear deterrent, surely we should still worry about, and be aware of, costs. Given that submarine programmes have a history of vast cost overruns—50% in the case of the Astute class programme—will the Secretary of State assure the House that he is keeping a close eye on costs and that he is broadly confident that he can deliver Trident on time and on budget?

Philip Hammond: We have not yet contracted but, as I said in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), we believe that the costs of replacing the Trident deterrent will fall within the estimates set out in the 2006 White Paper. I should say to my hon. Friend that we have made significant strides to reform the way in which the submarine enterprise is conducted, and we believe that the MOD has a much firmer control of the enterprise’s cost base than has previously been the case.

John Woodcock: Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping an open mind about the timetable? If experts and the industry tell him that there could be a more cost-effective solution for the taxpayer if the main-gate decision were to come earlier than the scheduled date of 2016, will he be alive to that, rather than sticking to the current agreement within the coalition?

Philip Hammond: Tempting though it is to go down the route that the hon. Gentleman sets out, the reality is that the processes that must be undertaken to reach a mature main-gate decision that is properly informed by the evidence simply could not be shortened to the available time scale. We are aiming for 2016, by when we will have a robust basis on which to contract and to conduct the value-for-money assessment.

Syria

Anne McIntosh: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Syria; and if he will make a statement.

Philip Hammond: The conflict in Syria is of grave concern to the international community and the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime is, I think, regarded as abhorrent by everyone. The UK will continue to press for a political solution to end the bloodshed and we are urging the Syrian regime to enter the Geneva process towards a negotiated transition.

Anne McIntosh: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Clearly the security situation will have the greatest impact on Syria’s near neighbours, so what discussions have he and other members of the Cabinet had with those near neighbours and the Arab League, as well as NATO and the EU?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend might have seen that the Secretary-General of NATO made a statement only this morning about this matter. I assure her that we have the closest possible contact and dialogue with the regional players—the Arab League, the Gulf Co-operation Council, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. We are acutely conscious of the risks and threats that the situation in Syria present to them. I should also mention that we are the second largest donor of humanitarian assistance to try to alleviate the shocking refugee crisis in Syria.

David Winnick: Is it not the case that, although the civil war in Syria started in early 2011, a UK firm was granted a licence to sell chemicals to the regime in 2012, and that was stopped only because of tougher EU sanctions? Is there any murderous regime anywhere with which we are not willing to do business? This illustrates what I have said about Syria. If that process had not been stopped owing to EU sanctions, chemicals would have been sent that could have made the gas that was used against civilians there.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes a case with a great deal of passion, but without much detailed understanding of what he is talking about. Export licences were granted for some industrial chemicals that could have been used in a process that might be involved in the production of poisonous gases. Those export licences were revoked—no such chemicals were exported. However, I should explain that the problem that we all face is that a significant number of industrial chemicals have perfectly legitimate industrial uses—in this case, I believe, in metal-finishing activities—and we have to
	maintain the right balance between ensuring that we are not providing materials that could be misused and allowing normal trade to be conducted.

Gerald Howarth: Much has been made in the media about the potential impact of last week’s vote on the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that whatever disagreements there might be on the particular issue of Syria, the strength of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is absolutely essential, and it rests, much more importantly, on intelligence and a shared belief in a nuclear deterrent?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our relationship with the United States is central to our defence and security, and I am confident that, whatever happened last week, the depth, strength and history of that relationship mean that it is a resilient one. The Prime Minister has spoken to the President since last Thursday, and I am confident that as a result of that conversation the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom will continue, and will remain strong and resilient.

Gisela Stuart: Given that the security situation in Syria is likely to deteriorate or certainly change, will the Secretary of State tell the House why last Thursday’s vote, whereby in essence the House did not agree to two motions, should not be revisited in future?

Philip Hammond: As the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary have already made clear, this is a democracy. Parliament has spoken, and we take it that Parliament has spoken very clearly. We cannot keep coming back to Parliament with the same question. I think that the circumstances would have to change very significantly before Parliament wanted to look again at this issue.

John Redwood: I warmly welcome the Government’s policy of not intervening militarily in Syria, but may I seek assurances from the Secretary of State that every action will be taken by the Government and by friendly Governments around the world to make sure that perpetrators of atrocities in Syria are outlawed, and that should they seek to leave their country they will stand trial and any wealth and money they have forfeited?

Philip Hammond: Our position remains that there needs to be a robust response to the illegal use of chemical weapons. The House of Commons has ruled out military participation in any such response, but we will pursue every diplomatic, political and other channel to continue to deliver the robust message that my right hon. Friend calls for.

Jim Murphy: I want to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). On Thursday, after the vote, the Prime Minister ruled out UK involvement in military action in Syria. The Government of course will remain engaged diplomatically and on aid policy, but will the Secretary of State spell out for the House in
	what, if any, circumstances, following changes in Syria or internationally, the Government would bring back to Parliament the issue of UK military involvement in Syria?

Philip Hammond: If I may say so, it is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman, who last week trooped into the Lobby behind the leader of his party, giving rise to the very situation in which we now find ourselves, to demand that I tell him precisely in which circumstances we might revisit this issue. I have already said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that we believe that Parliament has spoken clearly on this issue, and is unlikely to want to revisit it unless the circumstances change very significantly.

Military Covenant

John Glen: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the military covenant.

Mark Francois: As my hon. Friend knows, the armed forces covenant is important for this Government and it is a personal priority of mine. We are taking a number of steps to strengthen it. These include the continued promotion of the community covenant scheme, with more than 370 local authorities now signed up—that is more than 80% of all the local authorities in the UK; the recent announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of £10 million per year to support the covenant; and the launch of the corporate covenant, which allows businesses and charitable organisations to demonstrate their public support for the armed forces community.

John Glen: Over the next few years, a considerable number of pupils from military families will be educated in south Wiltshire and around Salisbury. Will the Minister confirm that the MOD will work proactively with local authorities, including Wiltshire, to ensure that pupil premium funding is spent in an optimal way and that best practice is shared?

Mark Francois: Yes, I believe I can. The service pupil premium was increased in April this year from £250 to £300. I can assure my hon. Friend that as units move under re-basing, whether from Germany or within the United Kingdom, we continue to work with the Department for Education, providing specialist information, advice and support through our own directorate for children and young people to local authorities and schools to secure maximum benefit from the service pupil premium for service children. In my hon. Friend’s particular case, we will of course ensure that we involve the military-civil integration partnership in Wiltshire, which does very good work in this area.

Gemma Doyle: The Army Families Federation has launched an investigation into the effect of the bedroom tax on armed forces families, which I know may come as a surprise to the Minister as it took him some time to accept that armed forces families would be affected by the bedroom tax. Will he clarify whether the families of armed forces personnel who stay in single living accommodation on base in the UK are to be exempt
	from the bedroom tax in the same way as are the families of students living away from home? At present there are inconsistencies in the way this policy is being applied and it is undermining the armed forces covenant.

Mark Francois: I recently had the privilege of attending the Army Families Federation conference in Germany, where I spoke on a number of matters, and a number of questions were raised with me by service personnel. I do not remember that issue being raised with me by the Army Families Federation when I was in Germany, so it may be an issue that the federation has raised with the hon. Lady, but it certainly did not raise the matter with me when I was at its conference.

Bob Russell: The Minister rightly pointed out that the armed forces covenant is not just for the Ministry of Defence. With that in mind, what regular liaison and discussions are held with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that the community covenant is more than just a photo call?

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman mentions the community covenant, which gives me an opportunity to repeat the fact that more than 80% of local authorities have signed it including, I am pleased to say, all those in his and my county, Essex. He talked about co-operation between Government Departments. As he will know, a specific Cabinet sub-committee chaired by the Minister for Government Policy meets regularly to make sure that we are properly co-ordinated between Departments in evaluating the covenant. The hon. Gentleman may be pleased to know that that committee is due to meet again in the near future.

Smart Defence

Hugh Bayley: What smart defence or pooling and sharing initiatives the UK has joined; and what estimate he has made of savings to the public purse arising from such schemes.

Andrew Murrison: I am delighted to be able to say that the ultimate answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is 42, as the UK currently participates in 40 NATO smart defence initiatives and two of the European Defence Agency’s pooling and sharing projects. I am happy to write to him with a list, if he would like it. Capability development is a long-term process. Many of these projects are still in their infancy and as such we are unable to quantify meaningfully direct savings to the UK, but savings there certainly will be. There are clear benefits for the UK in seeking collaborative opportunities and encouraging other partners to do the same, particularly working in small groups where it is expedient to do so. UK-Dutch amphibiosity, 40 years old this year, is a very good example.

Hugh Bayley: Indeed, I would like the Minister to write to me. I support what the Government are doing to try to buy at lower cost collaboratively with allies, but the Government’s defence expenditure, according to public expenditure statistical analyses last year, was in real terms £4.9 billion less than when Labour was in power in our last year of office. What proportion of that £4.9 billion has been saved through smart defence?

Andrew Murrison: I have to refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier remarks. These projects have been going since 2011—they are in their infancy—so it would be remarkable if demonstrable savings were to be volunteered at this point, but we are confident that there will be savings, which is in large part why we are doing this, and they will be forthcoming as we go further with pooling, sharing and smart defence.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my hon. Friend update the House on what progress is being made on initiatives to deepen co-operation with other northern European countries?

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He will be aware of the Northern Group. Within both NATO and the European Union it is important to identify groups of like-minded countries, such as the Northern Group, with which we can work particularly well. It seems to me to be expedient to work with the grain of such countries in order to lever in effect. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will discuss that shortly in Vilnius.

Angus Robertson: On defence sharing, the UK provides military training to senior military officers from countries around the world. The MOD has confirmed to me in parliamentary answers that over recent years that has regularly included senior army officers from the Assad regime. Does the Minister regret that?

Andrew Murrison: I cannot really comment because I just do not know. I would be very surprised if that was the case, but we can certainly look into that. The hon. Gentleman is right that we provide training and exposure to a wide range of countries, looking all the while at the probity and integrity of their regimes. Clearly nothing is perfect in this world, but we put huge effort into ensuring that those who benefit from our training courses go back to their countries and use the information they have gained to good purpose and in a way that we in this House find acceptable.

Russell Brown: Does the Minister believe that the principles of smart defence are best served through multilateral organisations, such as the European Defence Agency or NATO, or on a bilateral basis, such as the Lancaster house agreement? He said that he will write to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley). Will he share that information with the entire House by placing details in the Library?

Andrew Murrison: Absolutely. I am more than happy to write about the 42 programmes and place a copy in the Library. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s binary proposition: namely, that we should choose to operate either on a bilateral or multilateral basis or through supranational organisations. I believe that both have their part to play. Working with the grain of other countries, in the way I have described, seems to me to offer great opportunities for levering in effect. I have cited UK-Dutch amphibiosity, which we should all be celebrating in this 40th anniversary year.

Defence Exports

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps he is taking to increase defence exports.

Philip Dunne: This Government are working tirelessly to support economic growth, and responsible defence exports make an important contribution to that. From the Prime Minister and Ministers across other Departments to service chiefs and Ministers in the Department—indeed, I was in Korea and Japan during the recess—all are engaged in supporting our allies in looking at acquiring top-quality British military equipment.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank the Minister for that answer. My constituency has a number of defence and aerospace contractors, so will he join me in welcoming the 62% growth achieved last year in defence exports and tell the House what support he has received from other Departments to ensure that that growth continues?

Philip Dunne: Of course I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the 62% increase in defence and security exports in 2012, which is up to £8.8 billion, and in a global market that grew by only 45%, so we are increasing our market share. As I indicated earlier, we have had support from other Government Departments. The Home Office, in relation to security, the Cabinet Office and No. 10, through the Prime Minister, are engaged. I point out to my hon. Friend and to the whole House that next week the defence and security international exhibition, which is expected to be the largest of its type in Europe this year, will take place in the O2 Centre here in London, showcasing to over 30,000 visitors and 100 foreign delegations the best of British on offer.

Thomas Docherty: Notwithstanding the growth of the industry, does the Minister accept that the recent debacle over parts of chemical weapons being sent to Syria shows that this Government still have not learned the lessons from Matrix Churchill and must be much more joined up between the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the MOD?

Philip Dunne: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the export application that was declined for Syria recently, as described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have a very clear policy for export controls that is supervised by BIS. I should have referred earlier to BIS’s excellent work in responsible defence exports through the UK Trade & Investment Defence & Security Organisation.

Reserve Forces

Pauline Latham: What discussions he has had with employers following the publication of the White Paper on reserve forces.

Mark Francois: The proposals in the “Future Reserves 2020” White Paper published in July were the result of a full and open consultation with stakeholders, including
	employers and representative bodies such as the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses. I have been encouraged by the constructive support we have received. We know that the only way to implement our plans successfully for the future reserves is to maintain an open and honest discussion among the Department, reserves and their families, and employers. That is what we have done to date, and it is precisely what we shall continue to do in the weeks and months ahead.

Pauline Latham: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he join me in paying tribute to the many reservists who have served with distinction in both Iraq and Afghanistan, including one young man in my office, Hugh Orton, who has completed a three-month internship and who has done valuable service overseas?

Mark Francois: I wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to our reservists, including her member of staff. Our reservists are essential members of our armed forces who have served and continue to serve with great distinction and gallantry on deployed operations. Since 2003 more than 25,000 reservists have been mobilised for operations alongside their regular counterparts, with a number paying the ultimate price. In the Territorial Army alone, more than 70 operational awards have been earned since 2003.

Tom Greatrex: The Minister is of course right to pay tribute to the contribution of reservists, but could he indicate to the House what protection he will put in place to ensure that reservists are not discriminated against by employers when they go for new jobs?

Mark Francois: We are already providing additional support for employers, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, to assist them to find people to fill in if their members of staff are deployed as reservists on operations. We also plan to give greater notice to employers, so they should have greater regularity in when their employees are deployed for service. We have discussed this in great depth with employers. They are not convinced that we should legislate specifically on this issue, although of course we keep an eye on it as we go along.

Topical Questions

Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Philip Hammond: My first priority remains the success of operations in Afghanistan. Beyond that, my priorities are to deliver the sustainable transformation of the Ministry of Defence, to build confidence within the armed forces in the Future Force 2020 model, to reinforce the armed forces covenant, to maintain budgets in balance, and to deliver equipment programmes on time and to budget so that our armed forces can be confident of being properly equipped and trained.

Henry Bellingham: I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful statement. Does he agree that the current crisis in Syria brings into very sharp relief the crucial importance of the strategic bases in Cyprus, particularly
	RAF Akrotiri? Does he agree that it is essential that the Government do not just retain those bases but invest in their facilities and infrastructure?

Philip Hammond: The Government reviewed the utility and position of the sovereign base areas in 2010-11 and concluded that they played an important part in Britain’s defensive arrangements. We intend to continue to invest in them and to maintain them on the current basis.

Graham Jones: When will the Government make a decision on the number of F-35s that will be procured as part of the arrangement with Lockheed Martin, and is the Minister able to guarantee that the work-share allocation for the United Kingdom and BAE Systems will not be reduced in the future?

Philip Dunne: I can confirm that it is our intention, in the remaining months of this year, to place our first order for the first operational squadron of joint strike fighters. As far as the work-share component is concerned, as long as other countries maintain their orders and we maintain ours, we intend to retain the 15%.

Nadhim Zahawi: In July the Secretary of State announced that the Territorial Army centre in Stratford-on-Avon would close and made assurances, through a Minister, that tenants of the centre, such as the local ambulance association, would not be left homeless. The Minister also made assurances that the facilities would be provided for the local cadets and that recruitment to the historic 867 Signal Troop based there would not be negatively impacted. Two months on, could the Minister update my constituents and me about plans for the New Broad street centre?

Andrew Robathan: I can tell my hon. Friend—who is quite right to be concerned about these things, and I understand his constituents’ point of view—that the long-term future of the centre in Stratford-on-Avon has yet to be determined and that there will be re-provision for any cadet units and any lodging units when that happens. We have yet to decide what the wider defence uses might be for the site. If there is no long-term defence use for the site it will be disposed of in accordance with standard procedures, but without, I hope, any bad impact on the cadets or other lodging units.

Tom Watson: A leading commentator in Australia recently characterised the Syrian conflict as not “goodies versus baddies”, but rather “baddies versus baddies”. Does the Secretary of State share that simple assessment of our political and military dilemma?

Philip Hammond: Simple assessments of complex situations rarely paint the whole picture, but the hon. Gentleman has a point. The opposition is not a single, homogenous force. There are various elements within it, some of which are deeply unpleasant in their objectives and methods.

Simon Hughes: Following the answer to the first topical question and in the light of last Thursday’s decision, what conflict-resolution role does the Secretary of State envisage for our troops based either in Cyprus or more widely in the middle east and north Africa region?

Philip Hammond: As I have made clear, we accept the will of Parliament that there will be no British military involvement in any action against Syria. That does not mean that we are not continuing to press for a diplomatic solution and for the convening of the Geneva peace conference to try to reach a negotiated transition in Syria. No one has yet suggested that any such transition would involve any military role for the UK. Until such a conference convenes and makes progress, any such question is purely hypothetical.

Ben Bradshaw: Why was the intelligence document published by President Obama on Friday so much more comprehensive, detailed and compelling than the one the Secretary of State published just the day before? If the Secretary of State was not in possession of the same information, which I find difficult to believe, why did he not wait until he could put all of the facts before this House, instead of forcing Members to make a decision when it was too soon and we were not in possession of the facts?

Philip Hammond: First of all, I did not publish a document. The chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee wrote to the Prime Minister summarising the judgment of the UK intelligence community. That was done in an atmosphere in which we were extremely conscious of the parallels with Iraq 2003 and extremely cautious about presenting any argument to Parliament that relied or depended on intelligence information that we could not publish or produce. I think we made the right judgment in presenting our argument cautiously, relying only on information that was available and could be examined by Members of the House of Commons.

Duncan Hames: Ministers’ summer reading will have included the report of the Committee on Arms Export Controls, including its concerns about export licences for dual-use items to Syria. In responding to that report, will the Minister confirm that British exports will not have contributed to the military strength of the Assad regime?

Andrew Robathan: I am glad to answer that question because it allows me to provide a rather more full answer than was given to the somewhat hysterical outburst from the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). The licences that are mentioned in the newspapers today, which I think are those that concern the hon. Gentleman, are two standard individual export licences that were issued in January for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride. As everybody in the House will know, sodium fluoride is used in the fluoridisation of drinking water and in toothpaste—I suspect that we will all have some today. Potassium fluoride has applications in the metallurgical industry and in the manufacture of
	pesticides. When it was considered that those substances could be precursors in some other application, the licences were withdrawn. Nothing has been exported.

Luciana Berger: The head of Britain’s armed forces, General Sir Nick Houghton has admitted that he faces a “huge challenge” in maintaining morale and performance. Figures that were released just the other month show that the proportion of service personnel who feel that their morale is low has gone up to 30%. That is a shocking situation. What will the Government do about it?

Philip Hammond: If the hon. Lady cares to read the original interview that General Sir Nick Houghton gave to the in-house magazine, she will see that there is a slightly different slant in that story to that in some national newspapers. The Chief of the Defence Staff was saying that we have perhaps not communicated our vision of Future Force 2020 and what it offers to the people in our armed forces as well as we could or should have done. That is why I included in the list of my priorities that I gave a few moments ago the communication of the challenges and opportunities of Future Force 2020 to our own people.

Edward Leigh: Given that for four centuries, Scotland and the Scottish people have played such a glorious part in the defence of our United Kingdom, and that from the battles of Malplaquet and Blenheim to the sands of north Africa and the mud of Flanders we have shed blood together, would it not be a good idea if Armed Forces day 2014 was held in Scotland?

Andrew Murrison: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, Armed Forces day was held in Scotland in 2011. He will remember that it was held in Edinburgh. I am delighted to tell him that on 28 June 2014, Armed Forces day will be held in the great city of Stirling. I spoke to the Provost, Councillor Mike Robbins, about that and he was absolutely delighted. The Ministry of Defence and the city of Stirling will work together to ensure that it is a first-rate event.

Barry Sheerman: What is the strategy in Syria? Listening to the speeches in last Thursday’s debate, it became very clear that no one had spoken to the new leadership in Iran or to the new leadership in China about their position on the Security Council. What is the strategy or are the Government just giving up on defence and foreign affairs?

Philip Hammond: We will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the last point. As I have said several times today, notwithstanding the vote last Thursday, which made it clear that we will not engage militarily in a response to the shocking use of chemical weapons, we will continue to explore every avenue to influence the outcome through diplomatic and political means. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he makes himself available here tomorrow, he will have the opportunity to ask the Foreign Secretary that question at Foreign Office questions and to receive a full answer about the level of engagement with the leaderships of Iran, Russia, China and the many other countries that are involved.

Bob Stewart: What chance is there of our reintroducing a maritime patrol aircraft in the near future?

Philip Dunne: As I believe my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the air ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—optimisation study is looking at our defence requirements and capabilities in air-based ISTAR, including maritime patrol, to inform decisions as part of the strategic defence and security review in 2015. A range of options is being considered, including unmanned air systems for maritime surveillance. If he is available next week to go to the ExCel centre—rather than the O2 centre which I mentioned earlier—for the Defence and Security Equipment International conference, I am sure that he will see some of those systems on display.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Have the Government taken the opportunity to thank the Americans for so thoroughly dumping on their oldest ally, the French, in favour of the long grass of the Congress when it comes to Syria?

Philip Hammond: I think we have to be clear in these matters. The British Government can speak for what Britain will or will not do; other allies have to make their own decisions, and just as we have asked them to respect our political processes and constitutional norms, so we have to respect theirs as well.

James Gray: Parliament as a whole owes a huge debt of gratitude over 25 years to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and its founder, Sir Neil Thorne. Under your instructions, Mr Speaker, and those of the Lord Speaker and the Secretary of State, the scheme will be relaunched next Tuesday at 5 o’clock in Room 14 under new management, and I am glad that Sir Neil Thorne has agreed to become life president of the new scheme. Will the Minister recommit the assets and determination of the Ministry of Defence to the scheme, and ensure it takes forward this brilliant opportunity of educating parliamentarians about the ways of the armed forces?

Andrew Murrison: Absolutely, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming chairman of the trustees. I know he has put a lot of effort into that, and it will be a great success. I add my tribute to Sir Neil Thorne, who has done a wonderful job over more than a quarter of a century in bringing together this wonderful scheme which so many right hon. and hon. Members have participated in and benefited from. The Ministry of Defence values that highly and will, of course, commit resources to ensuring it is a success. I am sure the House will agree it is important that the scheme should evolve, and right hon. and hon. Members will want the sort of transparency and governance arrangements that have now been brought in. I am clear that under the guidance of my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour, the scheme will go from strength to strength.

Paul Goggins: Beyond the dialogue that has taken place with the United States Government on how to respond to the chemical weapons attack in Damascus on 21 August, will the Secretary of State confirm that work will continue on how to respond were Syria’s chemical weapons to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda affiliates or Hezbollah?

Philip Hammond: That is a very good question and, of course, a completely separate issue. If the large stocks of chemical weapons held by the Syrian Government were to fall into the hands of non-state actors, that would represent a very serious threat to the region and indeed to the wider international community. I confirm, as the House would expect, that we have had and will continue to have dialogue with international partners about what we might collectively do if such a situation were to arise.

Sheryll Murray: I understand that a Fleet Air Arm pilot recently landed an F-35 on an American aircraft carrier. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that, and also update the House on the implications of any effect last Thursday’s vote had on training with the Americans?

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend says, I am delighted to confirm that a British-piloted F-35B—the short take-off and vertical landing version of the F-35 aircraft—has completed a successful landing on USS Wasp, which was, I think, off the coast of Virginia. We
	have a programme of embedded UK pilots training with US navy marines on those aircraft. Progress is good on that programme, and we expect the first squadron of aircraft to come to the UK fully formed in 2018, with pilots who have been trained and prepared in the United States.

John Mann: Post-conflict Commonwealth applicant Burundi desperately needs assistance in rehabilitating soldiers and ex-combatants from the civil war, including disabled and child soldiers. Will the Secretary of State use his good offices to come up with a scheme with the Department for International Development gainfully to employ some of the great expertise that our ex-service personnel, who are about to increase in number, could use to assist them?

Philip Hammond: I will certainly talk to my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary and see whether that is something DFID could look at. I will also ask our own conflict prevention and reconstruction unit to consider whether there is anything that the UK military could do to help in that situation.

Points of Order

Mike Freer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 29 August, during the debate on chemical weapons in Syria, the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), who is not in his place, denied—

Mr Speaker: Order. Just before the hon. Gentleman proceeds, I must first seek his confirmation that he has made all reasonable efforts to ensure that the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) is aware that this matter is being raised in relation to him in the Chamber this afternoon.

Mike Freer: I can confirm that I spoke to the office of the hon. Member for Bradford West to advise him that I would raise this point of order.
	During the debate on chemical weapons in Syria, the hon. Gentleman denied accusing Israel of supplying chemical weapons to al-Qaeda, and yet in the week before the debate, on Iranian-funded Press TV, he was clearly recorded accusing Israel. I would be grateful for a ruling on whether he has misled the House.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his reassurance that he made contact with the hon. Member for Bradford West, or his office, in advance of raising it. Let me just reiterate the factual—constitutional, if you will—position. All hon. and right hon. Members are responsible for what they say in this Chamber. If they make a mistake, it is their responsibility to correct it. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) is a sufficiently astute student of the procedures of the House to be aware of the many channels that are open to him to pursue the matter. I feel sure that he will be tenacious in pursuit of his opportunities. He will, I am sure, readily accept both that I have not heard the interview in question, and that it is not for the Speaker to adjudicate upon the factual accuracy of the content of Members’ speeches. I feel sure that he will pursue the matter in one or more of the ways I have outlined.

Paul Maynard: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I clarify for the record that, in the Opposition day debate on 10 July, I did not intend to suggest that I regarded either Pat’s Petition or We Are Spartacus as extremist groups?

Mr Speaker: That is commendably clear and pithy, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

David Davis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The events of last week have created a historic constitutional precedent that future decisions on war and peace will be subject to the decision of the House. That has implications for other constitutional conventions, one such being the tradition that the Government do not reveal their legal advice in those matters. That is normally a very sensible convention, but if the Attorney-General is the adviser to the Government and to the House of Commons, that creates a problem in giving independent advice to the House. Can you, Mr Speaker, us your offices to resolve that problem, either by obtaining independent advice on future occasions, or by approaching the Government to change that convention?

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting constitutional point, which I readily accept is worthy of further reflection and consideration. My best advice to him is that, if he wishes to pursue the matter and for the House to have an opportunity to reach a judgment about it, he should, in the first instance, approach the Chair of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform with a view to that Committee undertaking a study of, and making recommendations in relation to, the issue. There should then be an opportunity for the House, before too long, to come a view about it. I hope that that is clear and helpful.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have noticed that the Defence questions Order Paper was dominated by questions about the Trident successor and the Liberal Democrat-demanded alternatives review. Given that the delay to the main-gate decision cost this country £1.4 billion in extending the life of the existing submarines, is there any way that I, within the rules of order, can set on the record that, present for those questions, were no more at any one time than two or three out of nearly 60 Liberal Democrat MPs?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has, not for the first time, found his own salvation. I noticed during Question Time that, when he put his inquiry to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, with his customary courtesy, and no world-weariness, observed that the hon. Gentleman had made his point before. I could have told the Secretary of State that the hon. Gentleman has, in my recollection, made the same point in relation Trident, or a number of the same points, for the best part of the 30 years that I have known him. On most occasions, he has done so on a daily basis.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Private Members’ Bills

Charles Walker: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the publication of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee, Private Members’ Bills, HC188.
	Thank you for calling me to make a short presentation on the Procedure Committee’s report, Mr Speaker. I thank members of the Committee for their forbearance; we all worked extremely hard to produce the report. Some are more enthusiastic about its content than others, but it is a testament to the collective will of the Committee that we have produced something in this vexed area that we can somewhat unite behind.
	The right to move Back-Bench legislation is a great privilege that I and many other colleagues value enormously. We need to ensure that that privilege is exercised robustly, and with force and purpose. The Government, of course, have the absolute right to stop any proposed legislation that they feel they cannot live with from getting on to the statute book. That is the reality of government and the report does not try to challenge it. However, the current system for private Members’ Bills borders on the dishonest. Many people are losing confidence in the system, and I believe it is right to reform it.

Chris Bryant: I would go further than the hon. Gentleman and indeed the report, although it contains some useful comments. The present system is not just a farce; it is completely and utterly dishonest. It wastes Members’ time and misleads the public about what we do on a Friday. May I suggest that he avoids the concept of “Back-Bench legislation”? When the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) was on the Front Bench as Secretary of State for Wales, she introduced good legislation. In his terms, she would have been Front Bench, not Back Bench.

Charles Walker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I thank him for putting his views so forcefully. He gave excellent evidence to the Committee and I will come on to the points he raises and try to address them.
	Some 90% of the Bills now reaching statute that are marked as Back-Bench Bills or private Members’ Bills are, in reality, Government hand-out Bills. Not all Government hand-out Bills are to be despised, but there has to be a better balance.

Tom Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Committee for their first-class work. I have two reservations about the report, however, that I would like briefly to put to him. As one who was fortunate enough to see two private Members’ Bills enacted thanks to the support of colleagues in all parts of the House, will he explain to me why the recommendation is still for such Bills to be debated on a Friday, the worst possible day for being quorate? With regard to the end of the report—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—does the hon. Gentleman not agree that to call Acts “Back-Bench Acts” reduces
	the importance of legislation that has as much support as any Government legislation in both Houses once it has received Royal Assent?

Charles Walker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those observations. First, we are sticking with Fridays because a year ago the House took a view that it wanted Backbench business to remain on Fridays. It would not be for the Committee to suggest moving such Bills from Fridays 12 months after the House decided not to go down that route.
	As for calling the business Back-Bench Bills as opposed to private Members’ Bills, that is again entirely for the House to decide. These are just recommendations; we are not going to force them on the House or demand that it adopt them. It is entirely for the House to come to a view on the many recommendations in the report, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will put his arguments forcefully at that moment.

Thomas Docherty: May I say what an excellent job the Chairman does of chairing the Procedure Committee? However, given the number of people in the Chamber to hear his eloquent remarks, does he not think that it would be helpful if the Government found sufficient time at the earliest opportunity for the whole report to be debated at some length?

Charles Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Leader of the House is positively chomping at the bit to find time for the report to be debated, because he is a great reformer and is entirely reform-minded. Indeed, I feel that I am presenting these reforms today with his support, which is extremely exciting and very welcome.

Paul Beresford: Before any chomping starts, does my hon. Friend agree that although most private Members’ Bills are Government sponsored, as he mentioned, that is the choice of the private Member?

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, but if private Members felt that they had a genuine chance of getting their own legislation on to the statute book or that the Government would at least give it a proper hearing, we might begin to redress the balance.

Paul Beresford: indicated dissent.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend is shaking his head; I think we shall have to disagree on this.

John Hemming: I thank the Chairman for giving way and congratulate him on his efforts in keeping the Committee working on this project. Does he agree that it is an opportunity to move the balance of power in the constitution away from the Executive and towards the democratically elected legislature? We should look at the attendance last Thursday—not only was the Chamber full, but the Gallery was too—to see that where there is an opportunity for the will of the House to confront the will of the Executive, people will turn up.

Charles Walker: That is very much the flavour of this moment in time. I thank my hon. Friend for making that observation, but if hon. Members are happy that 90% of private Members’ Bills are in fact Government handout Bills, there is a good argument for returning the 13 Fridays back to the Executive, because they seem to have no trouble filling them.
	We have come up with a number of recommendations that may or may not find support with the House. The first suggestion relates to how Bills are selected for debate. The current ballot system has much to commend it. Those entering have an equal chance of success and it is not susceptible to manipulation. However, the ballot is totally random and does not discriminate between Members with serious intent to engage with the process of private Members’ legislation and those with a passing interest—such as myself, at times in my past—and a willingness to sign their name in the book because it seems like a good idea at the time, as they are directed towards it in a Division Lobby by the Whips. Therefore, we ask the House to consider a system whereby the responsibility is placed on Members to gather support for their legislative initiatives.
	Those Bills with the greatest number of signatures drawn from across the House would take precedence. Members would be allowed to support only one Bill with their signatures—this is very important—so once they had signed their signature away, they could not give it to anyone else, unless they withdrew it from the Bill that they had already said they would support. The process of attracting support would start well before the date of presentation and demonstrate the seriousness of intent behind the Member’s proposed legislation. It is hoped that those participating would cast their net wide in seeking support and, of course, include Ministers and Whitehall at an early stage.

James Gray: I signed the report and very much support the idea behind it, but does my hon. Friend not agree that that mechanism risks encouraging populism behind Bills, rather than encouraging Bills that are worthy but obscure?

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is much to commend the current ballot system, but it is incumbent on the Committee to put a series of proposals before the House so that it can come to its own view, because the House is populated by extremely wise people who have a lot of knowledge and wisdom to impart in this area. It will be for the House to reflect on what it wishes to do.

Jack Straw: I have been able to read the Procedure Committee’s report since it was issued this morning, and I greatly welcome it. Were it to be implemented, it would result in a sea change in the attitude of Members on both sides of the House to private Members’ legislation, and their behaviour would change as a consequence. However, achieving such a change in behaviour is not so much about the method of selecting the Bills in the first place as about providing, through timetabling, a process by which decisions can be made. At the moment, any Bill that is even remotely contentious ends up being kicked into touch as a result of the activities of the Whips. This creates a dishonesty that verges on farce, and leads to institutional disingenuity
	by those in the Whips Office—of all persuasions—and therefore by Government Departments. I also very much welcome the Committee’s proposal for the Government to have to state their attitude to a Bill on First Reading. The Leader of the House suggested in his evidence to the Committee that the Government spent a great deal of time forming a view of such Bills. If that is the case, things have obviously changed since 2010. Also, we must be able to come to conclusions on Bills, whether on a Friday or on any other day.

Charles Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has made some useful observations. In preparation for this afternoon’s debate, I wrote a very long, tedious and laborious speech, but I do not think that I shall have time to make it. Instead, I shall demonstrate the clear thinking of the moderately informed by answering each of the points that he has just raised.
	First, in my view and the view of most members of the Committee, timetabling is an outstanding idea. We have come up with a number of suggestions to facilitate its introduction, in which either some or all of the private Members’ Bills drawn in the ballot would be timetabled. They would get a vote at the end of the Second Reading debate, and there would be a facility on Report to table a timetable motion that could be debated for 45 minutes and voted on if the House so wished.
	The House really needs to give serious consideration to our suggestions on timetabling. It is incumbent on every colleague here to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and others spend more time with their constituents on Fridays. As much as I enjoy listening to my hon. Friend on Fridays, I believe that on occasions his time on those days could be better spent in his constituency, where he would be welcomed with open arms. I know that you will be concerned about my mentioning my hon. Friend in this way, Mr Speaker, but I spoke to him in the Tea Room this morning and he told me, in his rounded Yorkshire vowels, that he thought the report was a load of rubbish and “cobblers”. However, we need to ensure that colleagues have an incentive to turn up on Fridays, whether they are for or against a particular Bill, and that they at least have a chance to make their views heard. If a Bill has a timetable motion, one can then impose time limits on speeches.

Caroline Lucas: I want to refer the hon. Gentleman back to the answer that he gave to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). The hon. Gentleman suggested that it would not be right to reconsider the moving of the debates on private Members’ Bills to the middle of the week because Parliament had already discussed that proposal and rejected it. Perhaps he is crediting Parliament with a little too much consistency. If we were to put that question to the House again, I think that it would attract a huge amount of support. Holding the debates and votes midweek, rather than on Fridays, would give real status to private Members’ Bills. It would also give us a better chance of ensuring that they are not talked out.

Charles Walker: Any motions that we table are amendable, and if there is a desire in the House to consider a day other than Friday for such debates, the House may do so. It is not incumbent on the Procedure Committee to
	tell anyone to behave in a particular way. We have come up with a set of suggestions, and the House is free to accept them, amend them or throw them out as it sees fit.

Andrew Selous: I may have missed it, but does my hon. Friend’s excellent report deal anywhere with the issue of one single Member shouting out “Object”, effectively killing or pushing into the very long grass a Bill that might have widespread public support? Did my hon. Friend and his colleagues look at that issue; does he have any thoughts on it?

Charles Walker: It is to be hoped that our recommendations will ensure that when someone secures a position through the ballot or whatever other system the House chooses, that person will get a chance to put their legislation before the House and let it decide on its merits or otherwise without having it talked out or ruined by a single individual or a small minority. If, however, my hon. Friend has found a deficiency in our report, please point it out to me, the Clerk and others, because we hope to bring these recommendations forward in the not too distant future and we want to make sure that what is put before the House has been properly tested.

Therese Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for this very good report, although there are a couple of things in it with which I do not agree. Some of the most controversial legislation has gone through this House as private Members’ Bills, so trying to restrict Second Reading through a timetable for fewer than three hours would, I think, be damaging. I have in mind issues such as the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and similar issues. A greater move is being made to have one Member present or address one Bill on one day, but I am slightly concerned because I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) saying that when Parliament sits, constituents can expect their MP, if the MP so chooses, to be in Parliament. I think that point should not be dismissed lightly.

Charles Walker: As my hon. Friend says, two and three quarter hours—one of the suggestions for timetabling on Second Reading—does not sound a lot, but we have to remind ourselves that most private Members’ Bills, if not all, are fairly straightforward. I appreciate that that is not the case on every occasion, but they are often straightforward and short. Government Bills, which are usually enormously complex and run to hundreds of pages, get six and half hours, which is often truncated by urgent questions and statements. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) says, but that is why we have options in the report. One suggestion is for timetabling to be limited to one Bill on a Friday. Again, it is for her and others to argue for and against the system they favour, which can then be put to the vote.

Simon Hughes: The report is much to be welcomed. Could we summarise the hon. Gentleman’s and the Committee’s views like this: “Here is a package of proposals to make sure we reach a view and decide on private Members’ Bills in the future, so that they do not get kicked into touch, but we are not against revisiting the time of the week or the week of the month in which such Bills are looked at if the first set of proposals does not achieve the sort of objectives that I hope we would all want.”?

Charles Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has nailed that with great perspicacity; that is exactly what the report says. As I have now said on about four occasions in this rather long speech, it is for the House to come to a view on our recommendations and to amend them as it sees fit.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Charles Walker: I want to make one important point about Third Reading before taking any further interventions. One of the most important parts of our report is the suggestion to remove the vote on Third Reading from the Friday proceedings and put it on a mid-week prime-time slot. That will serve two purposes. First, it will allow the Government to take a view and if they want to kill a Bill, they can stand up at the Dispatch Box and explain why they want to kill it and whip accordingly. It also means that the whole House—or those present, which will be almost the whole House perhaps on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday—can come to a view on that piece of legislation. If a Bill is passed, it will pass with the will and support of the House.

Zac Goldsmith: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him and his Committee on putting together an excellent report, whose effect would be to empower Parliament and, by extension, voters. I think it is absolutely right that if a motion is to be defeated, it should be defeated as a result of a Division—the collective will of the House, rather than the procedural trickery of one or two people who are particularly good at it. I would like to add my voice to the concerns expressed about Friday sittings, if only on the basis that Friday is fine for people whose constituencies, my own included, are relatively close to Westminster, but exclusive when it comes to people representing seats miles away from London, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for whom giving up a Friday is a very big deal.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend has made a very good point, which has also been made by a few other Members today. I must stress that it will be for the House to reach a view.
	It worries me—and this came up in evidence—that a Government, of whatever colour, shape or creation, will occasionally say to a Member who promotes a private Member’s Bill “We are 100% behind your Bill—we think it is a great idea which will go far, and we are all there for you”, while, behind closed doors, geeing up a number of colleagues to run it into the sand and kill it off. I think that that is pretty outrageous and pretty shabby. It is not peculiar to this Government or to previous Governments; it is something that all Governments do. Governments enjoy exercising power. I do not propose to take that power away, and I do not think that my Committee does either. We merely wish to see it exercised openly and honestly, and for that reason I feel that this is a good report.
	Some Members have expressed concern about our suggestion that private Members’ Bills should be called Back-Bench Bills in future. I think that “Back Bencher” is a term worthy not of derision but of great pride, and I therefore do not share their concern; but, as I have said, if they cannot live with it, there will be a chance for a
	decision to be made on the Floor of the House on what we should call what we hope will be an improved, refined and enhanced process.
	I thank you for your patience and forbearance, Mr. Speaker.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the publication of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee, Private Members’ Bills, HC 188.

Postal Services (Rural Areas)

Katy Clark: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the vital contribution that Royal Mail makes to rural areas; notes that the six day a week collection and delivery service to rural and remote areas is invaluable to local life; further notes that the relationship Royal Mail has with the post office network is equally important for the continued survival of post offices; recognises that the impending privatisation of Royal Mail will place a question mark over its willingness to maintain what may be loss-making services; and calls on the Government to provide more concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas, remote areas and islands while ensuring that the postal universal service obligation in its current form endures.
	It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to introduce this debate on the future of our post office network in the event of the Government deciding to proceed with their plans to privatise Royal Mail. I thank the Members in all parts of the House who signed the motion that led to the allocation of time for the debate by the Backbench Business Committee. The motion expresses the view that the privatisation of Royal Mail will lead to uncertainty over the continued survival of many post offices, particularly in rural areas where there are often loss-making services, and calls on the Government to provide
	“more concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas”.
	I represent a rural constituency which contains many small town and island communities, and I know that there is a great deal of concern among post offices in my area about the impact that privatisation will have on the services that they provide. Post offices are central to the life of many small communities in particular. They provide a number of vital services, enabling people to obtain cash and even to buy a pint of milk.

Tom Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House.
	My constituent Hugh Gaffney, who is a leading member of the Communication Workers Union, has on several occasions—along with others—brought to my notice the impact on pensions that will result if the Government proceed with their plans. He and other members of the union consider pensions to be not national liabilities but deferred income, and he has asked me to convey to the House the strong views that they have expressed. Not only are the union members unhappy, but Mr Gaffney feels that if the Government go ahead with their proposals it will be—as he put it—daylight robbery.

Katy Clark: I was contacted by Hugh Gaffney today. He and other members of the union have been lobbying Scottish Members of Parliament in particular. It is vital for many pensioners who live in small communities—and in communities of many different types—to have access to postal services, but such access is also vital for many other people living in small communities.

Mark Tami: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. The post office is often also the only shop in the area, and it is a place where an elderly person can feel safe because he or she knows the
	person who works in the shop. If such people now have to travel to a much larger town, they will not benefit from the same sort of reassurance.

Katy Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; if the post office was not there—and if the shop that is part of the post office business was not there—there would not be anything in many communities for many of our most vulnerable constituents.

Neil Carmichael: I appreciate the opportunity to intervene in this debate, because in my constituency rural post offices are essential, as they obviously are in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Does she not recognise the Government’s wise decision to protect 11,500 post offices, modernising 6,000 of them, and to make sure that post offices that exist today will exist tomorrow and always in the future?

Katy Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. As he will be aware, however, organisations such as the National Federation of SubPostmasters believe that what the Government have done is inadequate to ensure the future of our post office network, and I suspect we will be exploring such issues in today’s debate. I also recognise that he, too, has a very rural constituency and that this debate is of as great importance to his constituents as it is to mine.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does she recognise that the link between Royal Mail and individual post offices is crucial? We talk about “rural post offices”, but in my constituency, which borders the M4 and is a former coal mining constituency, all but three of the post offices are part of the rural network.

Katy Clark: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, one that has been made to me by many who run post offices in my constituency.
	The post office is vital, not only for individuals, but for many rural businesses—that is another point that many people in my constituency have made. I believe that those who work for Royal Mail have a strong public service ethos. They provide a vital service in many parts of the country, and in rural areas nobody else is going to provide it. There are real concerns about the impact that the privatisation of Royal Mail will have on not just Royal Mail itself, but our post office network. I suspect that many issues associated with that will be explored in this debate by many hon. Members from all political parties.
	The background to this debate is, of course, the Postal Services Act 2011, which was passed by this House and allows not only for the privatisation of Royal Mail, but for competition for postal services. The Government have not, as yet, specified what form the sale of Royal Mail will take—whether it will be an initial public offering or a sale to private equity—although they have said that an IPO is their preferred method of sale. There is a great deal of concern throughout the country that the Government are rushing their timetable for political reasons. They have said that the sale will take place within the 2013-14 financial year. If that is the case, we will be hearing further details on the privatisation very soon.
	The Government have framed their argument for privatisation in such a way as to suggest that Royal Mail is in imminent danger and that privatisation is the only solution, but that is not the case. Royal Mail is doing very well at the moment, and profits more than doubled in the past year, to more than £400 million. That is partly because the Government have taken over the assets and liabilities of Royal Mail’s pension scheme, saving the company £300 million each year. I congratulate the Government on taking that step. Of course Royal Mail needs access to capital for investment, but the urgency of the Government’s case seems to be driven more by a political timetable. There are many ways to get access to capital. For example, Network Rail is a public body that is authorised to access private capital, without affecting Government borrowing. This House has the right to expect the Government to look at other ways in which Royal Mail could get this access without going down the privatisation path.
	The privatisation path is deeply unpopular, with not only the public, but Royal Mail staff. When the Communication Workers Union consulted its staff, it found that 96% opposed privatisation. Unite, which represent managers in Royal Mail, has also come out strongly against privatisation. The National Federation of SubPostmasters was originally sympathetic to some of what the Government were saying but it is now calling on them to halt the privatisation of Royal Mail, because of what it says is the Government’s failure to provide new work to post offices. In the briefings that it has been providing to Members throughout the country, which have been given to me by my constituents and when I have visited post offices over the past few days, the NFSP says that no new work has been awarded to post offices since May 2010 and that the new services that have been introduced are one-off transactions available only at a small number of post offices. It says that without the promised new Government work Post Office Ltd and individual post offices do not have a viable future and that a close relationship with Royal Mail is vital and will be jeopardised by privatisation.
	One reason people are so opposed to privatisation is the fear that the universal service obligation will be under threat. The affordable six days a week service that is so valued in the United Kingdom is expensive to provide, particularly in rural areas. Rural post offices and rural postal services are most vulnerable because they are the most costly and private parcel delivery companies routinely charge a high premium for delivering to remote or rural areas or to islands—or simply refuse to deliver at all.
	A report by Citizens Advice Scotland in 2011 found that 83.8% of people surveyed living in remote parts of Scotland had been refused delivery altogether by a retailer using a carrier other than Royal Mail and that increased charges are normal. That is, of course, a problem not just in Scotland but throughout many parts of the UK.

Jesse Norman: The hon. Lady mentions the universal service obligation. Is it not the case that the obligation is now better protected than ever as it has been written into primary legislation by Parliament?

Katy Clark: There is not a short answer to that question, but I will try to explore it. My point is that the legal protections are inadequate, as there is a great deal
	of uncertainty about where we will go. The 10-year agreement that has been entered into is not good enough and does not last for long enough. I expect that we will explore those issues as we continue the debate.

John McDonnell: Is it not true that the industry lost confidence in the Government because of the failure to deliver the additional work promised to the post offices?

Katy Clark: That is indeed the case and that is very much what the people running post offices are saying.
	I appreciate the difficulties—the Labour Government grappled with them, too—but I must say to the Government that unless we deliver on providing new services to the post offices, change of this nature is unlikely to be successful. All political parties and all levels of government —not just Westminster, but the Scottish Government and local government—must do a lot more in this area. We need to consider ways in which we can ensure that more services are provided in post offices to ensure a long-term future for them.

Sarah Wollaston: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being very generous in taking interventions. Although I completely agree that post offices need access to more services, does she agree that allowing greater flexibility in the Post Office Local model about how services are delivered within the business is important? A bakery in Frogmore provided such a service, and the restrictions being placed on it seem entirely unreasonable. Does she also agree that more flexibility is needed in the funding for the Post Office Local model?

Katy Clark: The hon. Lady is correct. Many people who are running post offices are being very innovative in how they are trying to develop the system, but how they operate is very much determined by how the Post Office relates to them and how the commission is calculated. Many of the schemes proposed by the Government mean that they will get less commission in the future, which is another issue that many people who run post offices are raising with me.
	As I said, there is a significant problem with the delivery of items in more rural areas unless Royal Mail provides that service. Even in areas of my constituency where private companies are normally willing to deliver, as soon as there is a bit of bad weather only Royal Mail continues to provide a service.
	Although I will not have time to develop the point, another major problem is the fact that people in rural areas are disproportionately reliant on Royal Mail. Consumer Focus, which is now Consumer Futures, found that users in rural areas were often more reliant on traditional forms of communication, such as the post, because of the limited availability of others. We could have many debates about problems accessing high-speed internet in many parts of the country.
	The Postal Services Act 2011 enabled other postal service providers to enter the direct delivery, end-to-end market, which is already enabling private postal service providers to cherry-pick services. For example, TNT has set up a delivery service in west, central and south-west
	London. It is able to win business because it can choose where, when and what to deliver. It does not maintain the service and standards that Royal Mail undertakes to provide, and it undercuts the terms, pay and conditions of postal workers so that it can provide a cheaper service.
	TNT employs workers on zero-hours contracts, which means that they are not guaranteed any hours. A journalist who went undercover in a TNT workplace reported how workers “hustled” each day to get work. The practice of organisations like TNT is to over-hire staff, meaning that staff are turned away each day without any work and therefore, of course, without any pay.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Lady makes a vital point about how rural areas, especially remote rural areas, will be starved of a service. People on the island of Rathlin, which I represent, will be forced to come to the mainland of Northern Ireland to collect their post, as will people in remote rural areas. Such a strangulation of service cannot be allowed to happen.

Katy Clark: My constituents on islands like Arran express the fear that they will no longer receive deliveries and will have to go to a central point for collections, as happens in many countries.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Lady has been generous in taking interventions and it has been helpful to hear her responses. If the Labour party were to win the 2015 general election—I know that an awful lot of people hope that that will happen—what practical steps would a Labour Government take not only to ensure the survival of rural post offices, but to encourage them to expand?

Katy Clark: I suspect that that topic could be the subject of a lengthy debate. I do not want to stray too far from the terms of the motion, but hon. Members on both sides of the House have outlined fully in previous debates what needs to be done to ensure that post offices have a viable and successful future. The Government have a role to play in that. I call on parties on all sides of the political debate to do what they can, because we all have areas where we are in power and can ensure that post offices get more work and receive more support.
	The overall package of pay and conditions of not only TNT staff in London but those employed on a similar basis by other private companies, which have been able to operate in such a way only since the 2011 Act was passed, is significantly worse than that of the Royal Mail work force. Ofcom is responsible for regulating the sector. It has explicitly stated that it is regulating TNT, but it has done nothing whatsoever about TNT either cherry-picking services or undercutting wages and conditions.
	The fear is that this is the face of future postal services. Although TNT and others might wish to operate in London and other profitable areas, they will not be interested in many other parts of the country, like North Ayrshire and Arran. Of course, that means that Royal Mail will not be able to use the money it makes in profitable areas to subsidise—to cross-fertilise—services in less profitable areas so that it can provide a national service. The Government say that they support the
	universal service obligation, as the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) suggested in an intervention.

Iain McKenzie: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She has been extremely generous, and I congratulate her on securing the debate. Did she, like me, see in the fly-on-the-wall documentary TNT’s habit of calling its delivery people back before they had finished their day’s work, thus returning mail to the depot, so that it took longer for people to receive it? That is an ongoing practice, and it is encouraged.

Katy Clark: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point.
	If we proceed down this path, the pressures on future Governments and the management of Royal Mail will be to reduce requirements, as they will need to compete on a level playing field with other service providers. They will have to ensure that the universal service obligation is financially sustainable. If we go down the path suggested by the Government, loss-making rural services will be the most vulnerable and will be the first to go.
	I appreciate the fact that the Government say that the universal service obligation is enshrined in law, but that covers only the bare minimum. Many of the requirements are set by Ofcom and can easily be changed. The regulator has recently consulted on user needs, including getting rid of first-class mail and thus next-day delivery, and moving from a six-day to a five-day service. That may not happen now, but if privatisation goes ahead it is more likely. The privately run PostNL in the Netherlands has put pressure on both the regulator and the Dutch Government regarding the universal service obligation and there are now plans to drop Monday deliveries.
	There is no guarantee that the inter-business agreement that has been entered into between Royal Mail and the Post Office will continue or remain unchanged at the end of the 10-year period. I do not believe that the protections that we have been offered are adequate, so I am asking the Government to halt the sale of Royal Mail to give proper consideration to how rural services can be provided in the longer term, and to put in place stronger legal protections for the universal service obligation. I believe that cross-party support for the motion reflects a genuine concern about the issue, and I urge the Government to look at the issue in detail, and to provide a detailed response today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Colleagues will have noted the 10-minute time limit on Back-Back speeches. I call Sir Paul Beresford.

Paul Beresford: I have noted the time limit, Mr Speaker, and demolished about two thirds of what I intended to say.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on introducing the debate, and I agree with many of the points that she made. I particularly agree about the need to create opportunities for sub-post offices in rural areas to provide more services, and I intend to discuss exactly that and one
	other key point. My constituency is bordered by the south-west edge of the M25. It is close to London, but it is rural or semi-rural. Many people will have seen the London Mayor in the recent broadcast of the Surrey cycle race, and some may even have seen Mayor Boris puffing up Leith hill on his bicycle—not a Boris bicycle, but his own bicycle—and the beautiful countryside that is to be found throughout my constituency.
	I want, however, to concentrate on something that is on the table. The mainstay of my rural post office services—and this was touched on in the opening speech—is provided by sub-post offices. My constituency has two main towns and perhaps 30 villages. A considerable number of villages have at their core a pub, if not two pubs, and a village shop, which generally incorporates a sub-post office. Between 2001 and 2012, Mole Valley lost a number of sub-post offices, which in turn threatened, sometimes fatally, the associated village shops. I understand that there are 11,800 post offices in United Kingdom, and approximately 750 are what could be called main post offices. Logically, therefore, the remainder are sub-post offices, of which 55% are in rural areas. In the United Kingdom, 31% of those post offices are the only retail outlets in the area, and 58% provide some of the very few shops in village areas.
	Sub-post offices are absolutely key to my villages. The viability of these sub-post offices is what I want to concentrate on, and I shall look at one particular angle. The Government can help us, because there is a move by Post Office Ltd to centralise a key front-office service: the system for the acceptance and checking of the printed photo ID market. Post Office Ltd is the front line in over-the-counter processing of digital photographs for licences issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, passports and other ID photos. This service is being cramped by Post Office Ltd. It is being moved to the 750 main post offices, where Post Office Ltd is installing at considerable expense what are called Cogent cameras, which will take the photograph and transmit it to the DVLA or Passport Office, as appropriate.
	I have in my constituency the head office of Photo-Me. This is a business with which many of us are familiar because there are a couple of Photo-Me booths downstairs. There are many such booths throughout our small towns and, in my area at least, some sub-post offices have them. If the proposal to use Cogent cameras proceeds, my constituents will have to travel from their villages to a centre such as Guildford. It does not look far on the map and it is not far as the crow flies, but my constituents do not fly. I am aware that the trend is for on-line services, but according to a recent estimate, 40% of households in my constituency do not have a computer, let alone broadband. For many, the internet is so complicated that they prefer to use the printed form with the printed photograph. These folks will have go to Guildford, with some difficulty, or one of the other 750 main post offices, rather than the 11,500 sub-post offices that could be available. That is inconvenient and takes time. It means time off work and, at various times of the year for various people who work in rural areas, this is impossible.
	A proposal has been put to Post Office Ltd by the chief executive of Photo-Me on behalf of a considerable number of photographers who currently produce ID photographs. There are about 1,500 independent photographers nationally, including well-known names
	such as Photo-Me, Jessops and Snappy Snaps, and a number of small outlets in small towns. The proposal is for the sub-post offices to have a relatively cheap scanner so that the sub-postmaster or staff can go through the transaction and scan the printed photograph into digital form to be sent online to the DVLA, Passport Office or whichever Government Department needs it.
	For some years long and technical discussions, in which I have participated, have been taking place, first with the DVLA, which now accepts that that would be possible and is a very good idea. We have now reached the Post Office, which seems to have put up a brick wall. Having got technical acceptance from the DVLA, I hope we can persuade Post Office Ltd to put this cheap and simple system into our rural post offices. I am having difficulty with that. The benefits to the sub-post offices are obvious. They would provide a new, better and increased service, which would also increase the footfall in sub-post office shops, which has a knock-on effect, similar to the system that supermarkets work. If people want to go to the pharmacy in a supermarket, they have to walk past absolutely everything before they get there and on the way back as well. They look and they tend to buy, so they use that service. It is vital, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, that we keep those sub-post offices in shops going.

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of sub-post offices, a shining example of which is Hopes of Longtown in my constituency, which has a shop alongside it. Does my hon. Friend share my view that many of these sub-post offices are also rural sorting offices and that it is equally important to preserve that aspect? He may wish to join me in asking the Minister to dwell on that in future reflection and when closing the debate today.

Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend. I would love to be able to do so, but as he knows, we are short of time. He has made the point and the Minister appears to be making a note of it.
	I am sure the Minister is as anxious as we are that rural post offices and sub-post offices continue. I would be grateful for an opportunity for two or three of us working in this area to have a meeting with her to discuss progress or, rather, the lack of progress. The chief executive of Post Office Ltd has offered to discuss the matter with me. I accepted her invitation some weeks ago but I await notice of time and date from her.
	The importance and vitality of a rural post office and postal service must not be underestimated. Having seen the evidence in my constituency, I believe that the previous Government damaged that, but as many of their Ministers were urban they probably did not realise it or they turned a blind eye. In essence, I am looking forward to the Minister’s agreement and support at a meeting to try to persuade Post Office Ltd to see this as an opportunity to expand a service and increase footfall in the sub-post offices in our rural areas.

Peter Hain: I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). In the remote former mining villages in my constituency, up the valleys, there are many
	pensioners and others who do not have cars and are not online and for whom rural postal services are absolutely vital. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) argued persuasively, the universal service provided by the Royal Mail makes a vital contribution to life in remote and rural communities. However, I think that that public service is currently under threat from the combined effects of Government privatisation and end-to-end competition from private postal operators like TNT.
	The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) claimed that the universal service will not be threatened because it is enshrined in law through the Postal Services Act 2011, but that covers only the bare minimum of the universal service. Many aspects of the universal service are set by the regulator, Ofcom, and could easily be changed while remaining legally compliant. For example, Ofcom recently looked at various ways the universal service could be changed to make it cheaper to run. It considered getting rid of first-class mail, and therefore the next-day service, reducing quality of service standards and cutting delivery days from six a week to five. Thankfully, it did not proceed with those changes, but with a privatised Royal Mail those options are likely to be raised again and again because of commercial pressures. On 23 December 2012 The Daily Telegraph reported that Conservative Ministers were thinking about future changes to the universal service obligation and that an all-Conservative Government could perhaps seek to relax it.
	Privatised postal services abroad have been successful in pushing Governments and regulators to downgrade the universal service. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, the plans to drop Monday deliveries in the Netherlands were the result of pressure from the private company PostNL. A privately owned Royal Mail would be under pressure to generate a return for shareholders and might similarly want to cut the burden of the universal service and lobby for similar changes here in the United Kingdom. Downgrading the universal service in that way would disproportionately affect consumers in rural areas. Services outside the universal service would not be commercially justifiable and would either become very expensive or not be sustained.

Eilidh Whiteford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only consumers in rural areas who will suffer but businesses? In fact, the whole local economy of large swathes of rural parts across these islands will be severely detrimentally affected.

Peter Hain: I completely agree with the hon. Lady, who makes a valid point about the impact on businesses, especially small businesses.
	Equally, if quality of service targets were downgraded it would be the harder-to-reach locations that would be most affected. Ofcom’s recent review of user needs suggested that removing Royal Mail’s air network in the name of cost-cutting could mean areas of Scotland, Northern Ireland, south Wales and rural England seeing first-class quality of service fall to just 50% to 75%.
	The Government say that they have no plans to change the universal service requirements in law for the duration of this Parliament, but that is hardly a long-term
	commitment, given that we are just two years away from a general election. Royal Mail privatisation is likely to place pressure on the Government to downgrade those aspects of the universal service that hurt the bottom line. Private companies are primarily responsible to their shareholders, and the public sector ethos behind the Royal Mail’s universal service does not sit well within that model. We need only look at private parcel delivery companies to see what happens when profitability rather than public service is the driving force.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, consumers in remote and rural locations are frequently charged extra. She pointed out that there are reports of £45 being charged for the delivery of £25 phones. The Government say that Royal Mail faces imminent danger and that privatisation is the only answer, but that is simply not the case. The most recent financial results show that under public ownership its profits more than doubled in the past year to £403 million. That demonstrates that Royal Mail can be profitable in the public sector, which is where most people—two thirds of the public, not just the vast majority of staff—want it to remain.
	Privatisation of the letters service will also impact on post offices in remote and rural locations. The post office network is reliant not only on Government subsidy but on the commercial relationship with Royal Mail that allows its postal products and services to be sold through that network. The current chief executive of Royal Mail says that the commercial success of both companies is best served by their working closely together, but a new chief executive of a privatised Royal Mail may take an entirely different commercial view. There are legitimate concerns that a privatised Royal Mail responsible only to shareholders would seek to sever this relationship in line with its commercial interests. That would have a disastrous effect on the entire post office network, but branches in remote and rural areas would be at particular risk because of their low population density and their revenues. The last Postcomm annual report on the post office network in 2010 found that fewer than 23% of rural branches generated over £40,000 per annum, compared with 70% of urban branches and two thirds of branches in deprived urban areas.
	The Government and Ofcom need to make sure that the universal service obligation in its current form endures and postal services in rural and remote areas are protected. This requires Ofcom to use the powers that it has to tackle the end-to-end competition from private postal operators such as TNT UK. It also requires the Government to consider an alternative business model for Royal Mail that would keep the postal service run in the interests of the public and properly engage the work force. The main problem is that the model of competition under the 2011 Act has meant, in a privatised context, cherry-picking of the most profitable parts of Royal Mail’s business—for example, taking the profitable parts such as business mail, sorting it and then delivering it to city centres, but dumping it back into the Royal Mail network for delivery to the most remote and costly rural areas. That imposes a double burden on Royal Mail, taking revenue away and then forcing it to bear the extra cost.
	TNT’s stated aim over the next five years is to increase its end-to-end operations to a work force of approximately 20,000 and to deliver business post—that is, the most
	profitable post—to doorsteps across the UK. Evidence from Communication Workers Union members in the trial areas of London shows that Royal Mail’s postal volumes have been materially affected because of this competition. Loss of revenues on the scale that TNT is working towards would have very serious consequences for Royal Mail. It means Royal Mail missing out on the most profitable business that would usually subsidise the high cost of delivering to remote and rural locations. Such unchecked competition places the current universal service under significant threat.

Lady Hermon: The right hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that I agree with every word he has said on this occasion, though that may not have been the case when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think it would strengthen his argument if he could throw a little light on the last part of the motion which
	“calls on the Government to provide more concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas”.
	Will he explain what concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas would be introduced if there were a Labour Government in 2015? That would be enormously helpful.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I mostly agreed with her when I was Secretary of State, even if she did not agree with me, but there we are. I would want the next Labour Government elected in 2015 to ensure that the competition regime was fair and that Ofcom regulated the market to ensure that competitors did not cherry-pick the most profitable parts of the business. That is quite an easy thing to do, but it has to be driven ultimately by Government policy.
	Royal Mail needs a level playing field where its competitors also have an obligation to deliver up remote Welsh mountains, or to the Scottish islands or the Yorkshire dales. That is why Ofcom must use the powers it already has to introduce general universal service conditions on competitors such as TNT which provide services that fall within the scope of the universal service. GUSCs do not require legislative change or ministerial approval, and they provide the best option for intervention on cherry-picking in the short term. Requiring Royal Mail’s competitors to deliver to a minimum area of geographic coverage for a specified number of delivery days and to a representative proportion of the population would go some way towards ensuring that competition was on much fairer terms.
	Ofcom could also seek to introduce a universal service compensation fund through which rival postal operators would compensate Royal Mail for the costs of providing the universal service. Similar support funds are being established in a number of other European countries to ensure the long-term viability of the universal service.
	Running Royal Mail as a not-for-dividend company, such as, for example, Welsh Water, would provide a suitable alternative model, and that is entirely compatible with the 2011 Act. The Government could choose that model and I urge them to do so.
	Royal Mail’s recent profitability shows that it could raise investment capital through its own profits, which would be a step towards becoming a self-financing, not-for-dividend company under the Act. Without changing ownership, Royal Mail could borrow from money markets,
	at a cheaper rate, as is the case with Welsh Water, even under the terms of the Act. That would be a much better model for protecting rural postal services. Otherwise I fear that the future will be an end to door-to-door delivery in remote rural areas and the appearance of personal letter boxes in village centres, with the post office network all but disappearing.

Dan Rogerson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). I disagree with some of his conclusions but share his concern for the rural network. He set out well the potential problems that areas such as his and mine face.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing the debate, which is important and timely given that, as she said, the timetable for making progress on Royal Mail has been set out for the financial year. Although that is what the motion largely refers to, it is inevitable that Members have spoken a lot about post offices, because they are so crucial to our constituents. I will be no different, because I want to discuss the importance of the post office network, which is a key part of the proposals. I also want to talk about issues relating to the universal service obligation that have already been raised by hon. Members.
	The constituency of North Cornwall contains 65 parishes. During the previous Parliament, when we had a formal programme of post office closures, it had 70 parishes, so it has shrunk since then. However, it is still a big rural area without a single railway station and where people rely on services that are close to them, wherever possible. It is a huge source of anxiety to them if they feel that a service that provides access to the wider world is going to be withdrawn.
	We have also had issues with the provision of broadband, which the hon. Lady mentioned, and I am delighted that the coalition Government have made it a priority to invest in that. Investment in Cornwall is at a particularly advanced stage, because convergence programme money from the European Union has allowed us to get ahead of the game. Many areas in my constituency were so-called not spots where not only did they not have fast broadband, but they did not have broadband at all and were still on dial-up. That was a source of consternation to a few people who had decided to relocate to the constituency to run a business, which was welcome, only to find when they tried to connect to broadband that it did not exist. I am delighted that we are making progress on that front.
	Postal services are vital too. That is partly due to the growth of online activity, including shopping. I am sure that many hon. Members visit postal workers at Christmas. Rather scarily, this will be my ninth year of doing so. There has been a huge growth in the number of packages that the Royal Mail delivers on behalf of a number of well-known companies that have hit the headlines and been debated in this Chamber for other reasons, namely their tax practices. That brings work to the Royal Mail and shows again how important it is. If the universal service obligation were undermined, people would be disadvantaged.

Eilidh Whiteford: My constituency shares with the hon. Gentleman’s the unusual distinction of having no railway stations. It also has problems with its broadband provision. He is making the excellent point, which it is important to emphasise, that such basic infrastructure makes the post office all the more vital to those communities. Does he agree that it is important to see the post office as part of the essential infrastructure?

Dan Rogerson: Absolutely; the hon. Lady is quite right.
	Many hon. Members have visited the North Cornwall constituency, including the Prime Minister. Some Members may have seen the pictures in the national media. [Interruption.] He is braver than I am; I would not want to see pictures like that of myself in the national media. However, we welcome him and his contribution to the local economy. There are many hamlets within the 65 parishes, so we are talking about lots of communities. If people visit the rural communities of North Cornwall, they will see lots of cottages with the name “The Old Post Office” on them. That is a mark of how many post offices we have lost.
	During the last Parliament, from 2005 to 2010, we received a tough deal under the post office closure programme. For example, many of the villages around Bude lost their post offices. They are still suffering from that. I could point to a number of successful voluntary schemes that have brought back local community shops and post offices. The scheme in Blisland predates the closure programme. The community there came together and provided an excellent facility that has an internet café as well as a shop and a meeting place. In St Tudy, where the post office closed, the community recently got together to apply for funding for a new building. That went up incredibly quickly, which is testimony to the hard work of the community. In other places, the publican has provided the post office. The Tree Inn in Stratton, which again is near Bude, has brought the post office back to the community of that market town.

Alan Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of local post offices. Does he agree that the Department for Work and Pensions has an important role to play by giving business to the Post Office? It is essential that the Post Office card account contract continues and that post offices are used as places where people who do not have access to the internet can apply for universal credit. Does he agree that it is important that the DWP gives that work to the Post Office?

Dan Rogerson: Ministers have felt under pressure to ensure that they provide a level playing field to all people who want to provide such services, but there is no question in my mind that only the post office network has the reach to provide services such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency contract and to tick all the boxes in terms of accessibility.

Neil Carmichael: It is very generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way. On the services provided by rural post offices, does he agree that the organisation’s strong brand is a good reason why it should introduce banking and mortgages, as it is doing? Those are powerful reasons to maintain the network and justify the Government’s confidence in it.

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman is right. We must look at the positives. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran raised a lot of fears, some of which are natural, but we must look at how justified they are. We must ensure that we are not speaking in political terms to draw the attention of the media and to provide a subject on which to campaign, but that we look at the reality. That is why I am delighted that the Government have invested money in the network as part of the programme.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the way TNT operates in London is the reality of what we are likely to see in the future?

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Lady made good points about employment practices, which I think will be of concern to people looking at employment in that sector. However, we are talking about the universal service obligation, and we will probably not find TNT falling over itself to provide alternative services in many areas of the rural network that we are talking about. I am confining my remarks primarily to the rural network, although I accept what she says about zero-hours contracts, which is a debate for another time.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Dan Rogerson: Let me make a little progress and then I will give way.
	I was listing the sorts of approaches that people have taken. In my constituency, the community at St Eval was shaped by RAF and Royal Navy housing, and Trevisker probably would not have been built were it not for the service community. That community has now largely left, and the MOD shut down buildings, took away the old NAAFI and so on, which put the post office under threat. Again, the community came together and put forward a good proposal with Cornwall council. It now has a lease on one of the former United States navy buildings to keep those services in the community. That is vital and we are looking to the future of those services as the buildings get sold off. Hopefully such proposals will play a part in shaping the future of that community.
	Interaction with other services is also important. A lot of villages may have a small school that is clinging on, although there are of course pressures regarding the viability of such schools, which we all want to protect. The village pub may also be under threat, and those services support each other. If families come to collect children, they might go into the post office at the same time, or if they are going to the shop they might also go into the pub. Such things all support a viable set of services and businesses in the area, and the post office plays a big part in that.
	Post Office Local provides an exciting opportunity for many businesses, and a new way of securing the future viability of the service. In some places, however, the sub-postmaster is looking to sell the business, and there is a concern that if they can sell it only as a local, finding a buyer may not prove such an easy prospect. We must get reassurance on that issue to ensure that in villages where a lot of community support has gone into the business, those gains are not lost as the post office moves to the local model.
	Much of the motion is about postal services and it is right that the House debates such issues as we are the guarantors of the obligation to provide that service across the country. I was struck by the comments of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who mentioned Royal Mail’s applications to vary some of those conditions, and that the regulator, through discussion and consultation, had decided that that was not the way to go. I do not necessarily think that whether those services are in the private sector—in whatever form—or in the public sector is the ultimate guarantee. That is for us in this House to provide, and the universal service obligation is now protected in law. On the variation of those conditions, we have a prominent role in consultations on whether such things should be changed.

Peter Hain: rose—

Katy Clark: rose—

Dan Rogerson: I will give way first to the hon. Lady as it is her debate.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are talking about a framework that will mean less money is available for Royal Mail, which will mean it will not be able to provide the services we have all been talking about? Parliament must have a framework through which Royal Mail is able to survive and post offices to flourish. Is that not what we are debating?

Dan Rogerson: Absolutely, and for some time regulators in other privatised industries have been looking at what is viable and what is not—water bills are a massive issue in my part of the world, and we have had a long debate about what is necessary for investment in the service, what is an acceptable level of profit, and what will be provided. Ofcom’s role is crucial.

Peter Hain: rose—

Dan Rogerson: I apologise but I am afraid I do not have time to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
	All parties must look at our future commitments to protect the universal service obligation. I sense that any party that signalled it was abandoning support for that obligation would not prosper electorally, and those of us in rural areas will argue strongly that as we move into a new era for postal services, those services must be protected in law. We will campaign vigorously for any variations in that and interact with the regulator to secure them. I think we can have a viable postal service that will hopefully be a lot more protected than it was, sadly, under the previous Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. It might be helpful to the House if I explain that the Chair will look to call the Front-Bench winding-up speakers at 5.40 pm, with a view also to being able to start the next debate, on cycling, which is very heavily subscribed, no later than 6 o’clock.

Michael McCann: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this debate. I wish, like others, to contribute because a large part of my constituency covers a rural
	area. I have two rural post offices out of a total of eight across the constituency, which is the lowest number of post offices of any Scottish constituency aside from Glasgow North and one of the lowest in the UK as a whole.
	The post is a vital service in rural areas. It goes beyond merely putting mail through the letterbox. For example, people who are not naturally gifted at form-filling can get help at competitive prices from the post office on a range of official documents, including passports, driving licences and tax discs. The post office will check the photo and form for a new driving licence for £4.50; by contrast, private companies offering similar services online can charge up to £60 for passport checking. The difference is between a public service at a modest cost and the free market charging whatever it thinks it can get away with.
	When public services began to be privatised back in the 1980s, the mantra from many who occupied the Government Benches at the time was that competition meant a better deal for the customer. However, let us look at some recent examples. The privatised Thames Water makes profits of billions of pounds but surcharges Londoners for upgrading the sewer infrastructure in the city. The energy companies, including British Gas, have put household fuel and electricity costs up to an unacceptable level in recent years—not something they are keen to tell Sid about. The railway companies are allowed to get away with above-inflation fare increases when passengers have to tighten their belts and suffer a drop in their incomes. There cannot be many people left apart from some on the Government Benches who believe that privatisation always means a better deal for the general public.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman is right to criticise the private energy companies, but Royal Mail has been guilty of excessive price increases. Royal Mail, which is under public control, put the price of a stamp up from 36p to 50p last year. Both public and private organisations are equally guilty.

Michael McCann: Yes, but under Royal Mail, we maintain the concept of universal delivery. As the hon. Gentleman has made clear, Royal Mail is profitable—it is earning the country money—which is why, instead of a having a one-off pre-election bonus through the sale of services, the UK should enjoy a regular income from post office services throughout the country.
	If privatisation is the trend, will there be other royal privatisations? Can we look forward to the McDonald’s civil list, the Starbucks Duchess of Cambridge, or the Mitchells and Butlers Windsor castle? After all, the latter company already has hundreds of Windsor Castles, so it would only be a consolidation of the brand.
	I have said those things in jest, but there is a serious point. A line must be drawn on how far privatisation is allowed to go. Everyone, including the Government, agrees that some things simply cannot be put up for sale. Honours such as peerages fall into that category. Parliamentary seats are legally immune from sale. The Prime Minister’s dinner table ought also to be exempt, although there are reports that donations to one Government party can get people through that front
	door. The argument is about whether or not postal services are a proper candidate for selling off. I and many other right hon. and hon. Members do not believe that the case has been made. Perhaps it is worth looking at the debate from the other side.
	Recent complaints from the head of Royal Mail, Moya Greene, about remuneration for higher executives in the service, suggest that one priority for a privatised postal service will be significantly better pay for those in senior management positions. I am sure that Moya is still smarting from having to agree to hand back the £250,000 she received to get on the UK housing ladder, on top of the £127,000 she receives annually in relocation payments. Marie Antoinette’s riposte, “Let them eat cake” comes to mind. Are those sorts of increases really what the country wants to see—and pay for—at a time when most families have suffered a drop in income as a result of the economic climate?
	The evidence does not back up the case for selling off postal services, so what is the real reason behind the Government’s enthusiasm for these projects?

Lady Hermon: I preface my remarks by saying that I do not want the hon. Gentleman to breach confidentiality, but it would provide a helpful contrast to the pay, salary and bonus of the chief executive if he could give us some idea of the income of the sub-postmasters in the post offices in his constituency.

Michael McCann: I am grateful for that intervention, but unlike our salaries, which are publicly available, I do not know the salaries of individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in my constituency. However, I think we can say that their salaries will be a fraction of the money paid to the chief executive, who appears to be willing to increase the salaries of higher executives under Royal Mail privatisation plans.
	The evidence does not back up the case for selling off postal services, so we must ask what is the real reason for this project. For most of those on the Government Benches it is surely a dogmatic belief that, whatever the evidence, private is good and public is bad. I anticipate that the argument that postal services do not really have the same status in this technological age as they may have had in the past may come up. We will be told that people have the alternative of going online or using e-mail, and so do not have to rely on postal services. However, my recent experiences in Blackwood, Kirkmuir Hill and other rural areas in my constituency suggest that that is a rash assumption. British Telecom and the Scottish Government, supported by the UK Government, are rolling out programmes for so-called superfast broadband. In rural Blackwood and Kirkmuir Hill, however, a part of the community—a new development—has been left out due to the rather bizarre claim that they could not be sure of demand. Those constituents may get new broadband speeds in three, four, five or six years’ time, so they cannot rely on the internet and e-mail to conduct their business now. They have to resort to more traditional means.
	That clearly demonstrates that communities in rural areas, where it is most expensive and difficult to upgrade online services, are the most likely to have to rely on postal services for the longest time. Yet if postal services are deemed to be too expensive, it will be in those areas that services are most likely to be jettisoned by private
	sector companies as uneconomical. That has certainly been the experience in New Zealand. In the UK, the number of rural post offices has been cut by 2,765 since 2000. I acknowledge that that cut is less than the cut to the number of urban post offices in the same period, but the accessibility criteria I mentioned earlier mean it is more significant, as rural offices are much further apart. Rural areas suffer in the provision of traditional Royal Mail and Post Office services and in the technological revolution from which urbanised areas will be able to benefit more or less immediately.
	There are, of course, questions about access to services for those who do not own cars and have to get to urban centres, where postal services are more profitable and more likely to remain. A recent Library note shows that the accessibility criteria already differ between urban and rural areas, with urban post offices expected to be within 1 mile of the customer, but up to 3 miles away in rural areas. There are bus services from rural areas—my constituency is no different in that respect—but they are by no means as frequent as those that urban users are familiar with. That self-evidently reduces access, compared with being able to walk up the road to a local post office facility in one’s own village.
	Then there is the question of whether the public want postal services to be sold off. The evidence from my postbag is that many people are deeply concerned about the proposals and have shown support for the Communication Workers Union campaign. I, too, would like to mention Hugh Gaffney, who has been a regular correspondent and has worked tirelessly on behalf of his union members in my constituency. However, nobody has written to me to say that the sell-off is a good thing and should go ahead. I cannot find any reference to a Royal Mail sell-off in the 2010 Conservative or Lib Dem manifestos, so there can be no claim of an electoral mandate for the proposal.
	In the face of public hostility to the idea and the lack of a clear mandate, surely the Government should reconsider their proposals and withdraw them. At the very least, they should defer the issue until after the 2015 election and put it in their parties’ manifestos to ensure that, before any decision is taken, there is a clear and proper mandate for such a potentially far-reaching act, because once services in rural areas have gone, there will be little chance of their returning and our country will be a poorer place for it.

Michael Weir: Throughout the debates on Royal Mail, I have made it absolutely clear that I am totally opposed to the privatisation of the system. That is not for any particularly ideological motive, but because I am concerned about what will happen to postal services in rural areas such as those that I represent, which have already suffered a reduction in services.
	The universal service obligation and the universal tariff are important to rural areas, but both are under threat, not only from privatisation, but because of other changes in the Postal Services Act 2011. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) said, fairly, that we should not be too fearful of them, but those fears are well based. The problem is that if they come to pass, it will be difficult to put the genie back in the bottle, once we have privatised Royal Mail and lost
	those services in rural areas. In a previous debate, the Secretary of State made the point that the Royal Mail started as a letter service, but was now a package service that also delivered letters, which is very true. That is the key to the future of the Royal Mail service, but it is also why it is crucial that it remains in public ownership.
	A reliable universal mail service is essential to businesses in rural areas and to efforts to encourage the growth of such businesses. If we are to re-energise small businesses in the rural economy, they must have access to a full, reliable and, above all, reasonably priced postal service that ensures that they can send and receive packages quickly and efficiently. Ministers have recently taken to justifying the privatisation on the grounds that, as a public service, the postal service has to compete with schools and hospitals for scarce public funds. That is emotive, but completely the wrong way to look at the service. The postal service must be recognised as an important economic driver to the local economy and one of the keys to building local businesses in the internet age.
	The Government and local authorities are investing massive sums in bringing improved broadband to rural areas. That presents a huge opportunity for building up the mail system. For example, the Scottish Government have entered into a contract with BT that will ensure that 95% of the population has access to fibre-optic broadband by 2017. Obviously there is a long way to go, particularly in the more rural areas, but we are getting there. That is an important development. Similar moves are being made in other parts of the UK—I recognise that the Government have made money available for that. The extension of fibre-optic broadband will improve the ability of small and medium rural businesses to operate over the internet and give an important boost to the rural economy. However, that will happen only if they have access to a reliable and affordable postal service.
	As I have said, it is not only privatisation that poses a threat to that service, particularly the “affordable” element. There is absolutely nothing to prevent Royal Mail or its new private owners from introducing zonal pricing in any service other than the universal service. There is also absolutely nothing to prevent Royal Mail from introducing, for example, a different first-class service—perhaps an inter-city first-class service serving the major urban areas at a lower cost than the universal service—in the face of the competition that will undoubtedly exist. That could lead to a situation in which urban businesses had access to a lower-cost service than rural businesses. Such a move would not breach the obligation under the Act. Indeed, it could be beneficial to large urban areas and larger users as competition developed, but it would, as so often happens, leave rural areas out in the cold with a reduced service. I remind Members that Richard Hooper’s original report made the point that large businesses, rather than small ones, had been the beneficiaries of the previous liberalisation of the postal service. That process could be intensified by the privatisation of the service, which would run against the very ethos of the postal services, which was to ensure that all areas of the country were served equally at the same cost.
	Last year, Ofcom decided that price caps would be removed from all Royal Mail products except second-class mail. In my view, the result is that the only truly universal service is now second-class mail. First-class
	mail could be priced out of the reach of many people. With the price of a first-class stamp already 60p—one of the highest prices in Europe for such a service—how many people and, crucially, small businesses will continue to send first-class mail? There is nothing to prevent Royal Mail from raising the price of the service to such an extent that it ceases to be used.
	I have raised the question of zonal pricing with Ofcom, and it has confirmed in a letter to me that it does not have any powers to prevent Royal Mail from introducing a pricing variation related to user location, as the Postal Services Act 2011 limits a regulator’s powers to universal services and access. That is the problem. Ofcom cannot prevent Royal Mail from introducing a price rise now, never mind if it were to fall into the hands of a private operator. Given its previous attitude to price capping, there is no guarantee that Ofcom would not allow unrestricted pricing for the first-class service.
	Even if Ofcom decided to use its powers, they would be insufficient to protect the universal service. Under the Postal Services Act 2011, Royal Mail is obliged to continue the universal service provision, and it is the only organisation to fund it. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) spoke at length about the fact that the Communication Workers Union had raised the question of cherry-picking. What will happen if services provided by others start to eat into those provided by Royal Mail and damage the universal service? What powers does Ofcom have to deal with such a situation? Would the Government close down a competitor service? The answer is clearly no; they would not do that.
	The Postal Services Act sets out what could be done in such circumstances, and it is worth noting that the decisions would be taken by Ofcom in the first instance. It would make a recommendation and a Minister would then decide whether to accept or reject it. If the service were in danger, Ofcom would have to consider the matter. It could decide to review the minimum requirements of the obligation, which could result in a reduced service that would be disastrous for rural areas. It could also decide on the establishment of a compensation fund. Importantly, however, such a fund would have to be paid for by all users of the services and not by the companies that deliver the mail. That could give rise to serious difficulties. It could also lead to substantial price increases for consumers.
	Ofcom could also impose general service conditions on all or some other providers. However, that is highly unlikely to be effective if, as seems likely, the other competitors would be found only in relatively small geographical areas and Royal Mail were the only provider in rural areas. Does anyone really think that a future Government would legislate to ensure that TNT, for example, should set up a nationwide service in place of the service that it provides at present?
	Ofcom could allow for the tendering of the universal service, but does anyone seriously believe that that would work, when the very reason for its being considered would be the fact that Royal Mail could not manage it? If such an exercise were to be carried out, what would be the cost? The Communications Workers Union has
	pointed out that an executive of TNT in the Netherlands has been reported as describing the universal service obligation as
	“a kind of Jurassic Park and we should be rid of it”.
	We do not yet know what form the sale of Royal Mail will take. It could go out to the public, or it could involve a sale to one of those companies. Either way, experience tells us that when industries are privatised, the chances are that they will fall under the control of one of the multinational companies. Let us look at what happened in our energy industry. The only consumer protection there is the regulator, and does anyone in this Chamber really feel that consumers have been protected by the energy regulators?
	There are huge problems, and as I say, once Royal Mail has been sold, it will be potentially too late to go back. At present, however, Royal Mail is making a profit and there is huge potential for growing its services in conjunction with the roll-out of fibre-optic broadband. Instead of selling it off, we should be constantly ensuring that Royal Mail is treated as an integral part of our infrastructure, in the same way as roads for example, and ensuring that it blossoms in public ownership.
	I had hoped to say more about the post office network, which is also very important in rural areas, but I am unfortunately running out of time. Post offices play a part in the delivery of mail, because they provide a pick-up and delivery point in many rural areas. No one in the Chamber will be unaware of the torrid time that the post office network has had over the past decade, when over 34% of post offices have closed. Although there is no closure programme at the moment, it does not mean that post offices are not still struggling and, in some cases, closing. Over the last couple of months in my constituency, two of the remaining sub-postmasters have decided to retire, and in the process the post offices have been transferred to other businesses. The service has been reduced to a post office local service, and that means a lesser service for consumers.

Margaret Ritchie: I would like to pay tribute to and thank Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), for bringing forward this important debate on the Floor of the House through the Backbench Business Committee.
	The mail and postal service plays a key role in the lives of my constituents, and stands at the centre of much that is good in the local community. The local post office and the mail service are central to both the economic and the social life of South Down. Some 55% of post offices are in rural areas and 31% represent the only retail outlet in their area—a situation with which I am very familiar in my constituency, particularly in hard-to-reach areas in the rural communities—a point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has already referred.
	The postal service plays a vital role in connecting our society: it is the central hub and is an essential part of the rural infrastructure, especially for the elderly and many vulnerable people who may be excluded from other forms of communication. Further cuts to our postal service and network risks isolating many in our
	society by creating a two-tier network that separates the connected and the dislocated. Such a development would be bad for our society and for our economy.
	To express support of our existing position is not to say that we cannot develop and modernise the service for the 21st century, and we should indeed be looking at ways to reinvigorate this institution as part of the drive to develop and regenerate the rural economy—a theme to which I will return later. As many Members have mentioned today, however, the fear is that the privatisation of the Royal Mail and its impact on the relationship with the Post Office will place a further strain on the Post Office’s ability to survive, especially in rural areas, and that it will not revitalise the service, as some have suggested it will, but leave it to wither on the vine. I am worried that the inevitable market pressures from privatisation will place further strain across the postal services and that the parts that are not as profitable, especially in remote or rural areas, will have to be closed. We should not and cannot let this happen.

Sarah Newton: The hon. Lady is making a powerful point and obviously represents a constituency very much like my own. Does she agree that there will be cases in which remote rural communities need these services so much that, although it will not be possible for them to develop commercially, they will need continued public subsidy? Will she join me in asking the Minister to commit to—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to sit down? Questions must be brief.

Margaret Ritchie: I take the hon. Lady’s point. In remote rural areas, where there is little access to broadband, there must be an alternative in the form of the rural post office, with all its attendant services.
	As we have seen with other privatisations, once the horse has bolted and the rationale of market practices has been enforced, it can be very difficult to reverse or even moderate the impacts. Despite assurances to the contrary, the end result is likely to be a reduced and more expensive service, and the fear is that rural services will be the canary in the coal mine.
	We have received lukewarm reassurances that the universal service obligation will be retained, but it is feared that once private owners are placed under financial and competitive pressure, they will re-examine it or and seek to change the terms of that important social compact, or be forced to contract their service. It would be completely unacceptable at any point for rural customers to have to pay more for that service. I ask the Minister to reassure us today that that will never happen, and that we are not on a slippery slope towards the erosion of the universal service obligation. I should also like to hear from her a more detailed explanation of how the Government and Ofcom will prevent a private operator from ever altering the terms of the agreement.
	Let me reiterate that I do not oppose the modernisation of the service. Indeed, the initial plans for modernisation met with a degree of approval. It was hoped that more Government functions and business would be returned to the Post Office, and that the plans would return post offices to the centre of local life and diversify the service to meet the needs of all in the community. Over the last
	10 months, I have been pleased to be asked by the Post Office to open rebranded branches in my constituency, which have been open for more hours and have offered a broader range of services. It is important for such services to be retained in hard-to-reach rural communities. There is clearly a public demand for more of them to be provided, primarily through local post office branches. In response to a recent ICM poll, 89% of people said that they wanted a face-to-face service, and 73% said that they preferred the post office.
	I believe that, following the recent review of banking and financial services, the Government have missed an opportunity to put the Post Office at the centre of a restructured retail banking sector. I believe that there is enormous potential for post offices to offer high-street banking services that would provide income for the Post Office while also bringing customers through the door to use their other services. That would apply particularly in rural areas that are currently experiencing a wave of bank branch closures. In Northern Ireland, Ulster bank, RBS, First Trust—part of Allied Irish Banks—and the Bank of Ireland are closing branches in rural communities.
	If high-street banks were compelled, or encouraged, to offer access to a wide range of transaction services in local post office branches, and to make customers aware of that, we could see a revolution in the functioning of our post offices, and a revitalisation of the rural economy. What we need from the Government is an approach that aims to develop and support our postal services, bringing them into line with the 21st century while supporting their invaluable social function, but instead there is the fear that they will sell in haste and repent at leisure.

Lady Hermon: Before the hon. Lady closes her remarks, I am sure that she would like to join me in paying tribute to all those in Royal Mail and the postal services in Northern Ireland, who served the entire community, without fear or favour, through the awful years of the troubles. We owe them a sense of loyalty and dedication now, when they feel that their jobs and their services are in jeopardy.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, with which I fully agree. I commend all those—past and present—employed in Royal Mail and postal services throughout Northern Ireland, because through the dark days of the troubles they had to go to hard-to-reach communities, both rural and urban, in very difficult circumstances. They often risked their lives to ensure that people had proper access to a postal service. It is important that we commend them and that this House records that.
	The postal service and the post office lie at the heart of rural life and the rural economy. While remaining open to new opportunities, modernisation and reform of these vital services, we must not let the driving logic of privatisation destroy part of the fabric of rural life. It is important to emphasise that the National Federation of SubPostmasters, a representative of which I met recently, has made it clear that in practice it is very much not opposed to modernisation or to getting more services, but it is opposed to any contraction or withdrawal of the services. There has certainly not been enough to counteract the fall in income from Government services from £576 million in 2005 to £167 million in 2010. I am
	happy to commend the motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). I fully support it, but we must show our determination to retain postal services and Royal Mail.

Susan Elan Jones: I am delighted to speak in this important debate on the future of postal services in rural areas, and it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie). I congratulate all hon. Members who proposed this excellent motion, especially my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who gave this debate a lucid and thoughtful opening.
	The fact that the motion is supported so widely is hugely important and will, I hope, provide a clarion call to the Government that those who represent rural and semi-rural seats will not stand for anything less than a genuinely universal service as regards Royal Mail and the Post Office. My postbag of postcards, letters and e-mails from people from across my constituency’s 240 square miles bears a clear message: keep the Royal Mail public, with a genuine universal obligation, and protect our post offices. My constituents are absolutely right to say that. Some who have written to me tell me openly that they are supporters of the Countryside Alliance, whereas others will be members of the Communication Workers Union or Unite. The majority are probably not aligned with any of those groups, but everyone speaks with one voice on this issue, which is so critical to all rural and semi-rural communities, such as those in my constituency. At least one commentator has described the campaign to save Royal Mail and the universal service obligation as
	“an unholy alliance of left and right”.
	People coming together across the normal political divides might be “unholy” in the tawdry little world of dog-whistle politics, but for most of us it is sign of strength.
	I hope that hon. Members will now forgive me a moment of lyricism. Is this situation not a case of an Aesop’s fable being enacted all over again? Is it not the Notting Hill town mice, free-market rodents to every last whisker, scoffing at their little country cousins, saying, “Come on, let’s get rid of the old-fashioned structure. We’ll do something more modern, more sophisticated—more free market. In short, things will be so much better”? We all know what happened in the end: whether because of the couple of dogs in Aesop’s version or the vacuum cleaner in the 1970s one—it is odd what one remembers—the metropolitan order got its come-uppance and the country mouse gladly returned to the security of a system that worked.
	I suspect that things are not quite as easy in this case as they were in Aesop’s fable, because if the Government go ahead with their plans for Royal Mail, the security of the old system in rural areas simply will not be in place. If Royal Mail as we know it is destroyed, it will not just wait around some imaginary corner. It was put beautifully in an article in The Daily Telegraph last summer written by Vicki Woods, stating that
	“twisting lanes and long driveways may be a step too far for the privatised Royal Mail.”
	We still have not heard why the Government intend to privatise such a profitable institution as Royal Mail or why they appear to have ruled out the mutual option of ownership. We still have no guarantees that the cost of sending parcels to different parts of the country will be the same and we have no guarantees, shamefully—because there are no guarantees—that Royal Mail will stay where it belongs, in British hands.
	We often speak in this place of the importance of a revival in private sector fortunes for economic growth and we are absolutely right to do so, but in our rural communities that highlights the importance of people being able to work at home from those communities. Whatever line of business they are in, the chances are that that will mean parcels and mail. Imagine the disincentive to those communities if every single delivery ends up costing more—perhaps vastly more—than in an urban area. That would be even more the case if the daily delivery ended. The impact on rural staff and companies—and ultimately on the rural economy—would be immense.
	Let me move on to the post office. We cannot forget that in many rural centres post offices can be a hub for the local community. We should invest in that and support it. I want to pay tribute at this point to the post office diversification fund of the Labour Welsh Government, which last year made a grant to Pontfadog post office in the beautiful Ceiriog valley to fund new lighting and signage, a new chiller for fruit and veg, sandwiches, pies and cakes for tourists, a photocopier and a notice board. The post office, like many in the smaller villages, manages to combine being a village centre with being a place of hospitality, a tourist information centre and so much more. We must support such initiatives and commit ourselves to them and those like them in our rural areas.
	We must think, too, about how we can support postal services in two other scenarios that are, I think, almost exclusively rural. The first is when there is no longer a full post office but the Post Office is willing to retain a counter. How can we give more support to other retail outlets, where they exist, or to other organisations? We must be more flexible in that regard and urgently need to do more to promote partnership working and to get post office counters running. As long as there is the relevant security, we can and should be very imaginative about where to place those counters.
	In the second scenario, the Post Office will want to keep a post office open but no willing party will take on the post of postmaster, which means that we see temporary or, in some cases, long-term closures. We should be open to different patterns of employment so that services never have to close for the lack of one post holder. More must be done to ensure that those post offices should stay open. Post Office Ltd should not be let off the hook in this regard: we would not say that it did not matter if a school or health service provider closed for six months.
	Postal services—Royal Mail and the Post Office—are undoubtedly vital to our rural communities, so I urge the Government to do more to support them. I urge them to listen to the country mice in this place and reconsider their flawed and unpopular plans to privatise Royal Mail.

Ian Murray: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting the debate. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who has been dogged over many years in speaking against the privatisation of Royal Mail and pointing out its impact on her rural constituency. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not mention everyone who spoke because time constraints mean that we must rattle through the debate.
	With perhaps only a few weeks to go until the Government hammer the final nail in the coffin that will seal the privatisation of Royal Mail, this has been a crucial opportunity to debate the impact of that policy on rural communities throughout the country. Such communities have already been hit hard by the Government. Whether through their astonishing abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board without a debate in the House or their inaction on rising travel and fuel costs, or with the disproportionate effect of the cost of living crisis on rural communities, the Government have been found wanting, and we now have the ideologically driven fire sale of Royal Mail to save the Chancellor’s blushes. It is only a few months since the rural economy index concluded:
	“Rising unemployment, shrinking profits and plummeting confidence in countryside businesses has thrown the rural economy to the brink of a further recession”.
	There is a fear that the privatisation of Royal Mail and other changes to postal services will accentuate that decline.
	We should praise postal workers throughout the United Kingdom for their work. They get important mail and items to families and businesses up and down the country come rain, hail, shine or snow. We should especially thank those workers in the most remote parts of the country, which is why the motion is right to cite the
	“vital contribution that Royal Mail makes to rural areas”.
	Royal Mail’s profits, which are in excess of £400 million, are a testament not only to the hard work of its staff, but to the partnership of management and staff working with the trade unions to make the Royal Mail service the best that it can be.
	The universal service obligation of one price anywhere, six days a week, gives equity to rural areas and supports rural economies. We have only to look at the inequity of pricing for delivering parcels to certain remote areas, which many hon. Members cited, to see the potential for rural economies to be hit hard should the USO principle be undermined.
	The social aspect of the post office network in rural areas is critical. Post offices act as a focal point for communities and provide a vital service, especially for older people, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said. Of course, they are also important to the small businesses that use our postal services.
	There are undoubtedly challenges, given that letter volumes are falling drastically and maintaining the USO is expensive. However, the maintenance of the USO is at the crux of the debate. The Government cannot guarantee either the USO or the inter-business agreement with the Post Office because they have no real control over rival end-to-end operators cherry-picking more profitable services, which in turn makes delivering
	the USO more expensive. A more expensive USO puts pressure on a privatised Royal Mail to cut costs, and the most expensive parts of its business are its rural operations.
	Neither the Minister nor the Royal Mail can tell us what will happen if everything goes wrong. If the USO becomes too expensive to deliver or if the privatised Royal Mail just hands back the keys to the Government, as the private companies did when their contracts failed on the east coast rail line, what will happen? The taxpayer will pick up the tab. The situation is compounded by the fact that the Royal Mail has much higher service standards than rival deliverers. It therefore faces higher standards that are more expensive to deliver, and pressure on its most profitable parts from rival companies operating under lower service standards and employing staff under worse working conditions, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, to make their services cheaper still. Combined with that is an ever-more expensive USO, pressure on the inter-business agreement with the Post Office and the fact that the Government have no strategy on how to protect the USO in the long term. Then there is the big question of the EU directive, because will the UK be in the EU? Does the Prime Minister want to repatriate in this area and will that create further uncertainty about the universal service obligation? This is a recipe for disaster, and the effects will be hardest felt in rural areas.
	It would be naive to think that any new owner of a privatised Royal Mail would not aim to maximise shareholder value. That will put pressure on reducing costs and on services that might be considered uneconomic, such as reaching remote areas. Rural businesses might well have to pay more to have their mail delivered, while getting parcels from online retailers could come at a premium for householders. We have heard that a survey by Citizens Advice Scotland found that 84% of people living in the remotest parts of Scotland have been refused delivery by a non-Royal Mail carrier.
	The importance of the post office network to rural communities is shown by statistics from the National Federation of SubPostmasters saying that 55% of post offices are in rural areas and that 31% are the only retail outlet in some areas. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) said, such post offices are often how rural communities access the wider world. The post office network depends on Royal Mail for more than 30% of its income, so we can see why there are considerable concerns that the 10-year inter-business agreement will fall. First, it was included in the Postal Services Act 2011 only after Labour and stakeholder pressure. Secondly, it can be reviewed in five years and, thirdly, it can be altered if there are material adverse effects on either of the two companies. It is a vital link in the sustainability of the post office network.
	The Post Office is in a precarious position. A recent survey by the National Federation of SubPostmasters found that operating costs were rising; personal drawings for sub-post masters had fallen by 36% in four years; one in four sub-postmasters took absolutely no salary from their post office income; and most sub-postmasters earned little or no income from financial or Government services—the two areas that Ministers identified as having “real growth potential”. Most importantly for this debate, the Government have completely failed to deliver their pledge to make the post office the “Front Office for Government”. Do hon. Members remember
	that mantra? That has resulted in the NFSP withdrawing its support and saying that the privatisation of Royal Mail could fundamentally impact on the viability of the post office network, as it has become increasingly dependent on Royal Mail for business.
	Then there is the impact on rural areas of the roll-out of the Post Office Local programme. Groups such as Consumer Focus—now Consumer Futures—say that there is a lack of analysis by the Government on how the programme will ultimately work. The Countryside Alliance is concerned that the model could result in many rural communities losing their post office or seeing further cuts in services such as manual cash deposits and withdrawals, manual bill payment services. and on-demand foreign currency. That is particularly worrying, given that the NFSP has shown that 43% of older people in rural areas use the post office to access cash.

Alan Reid: I am pleased that the Labour spokesperson is speaking up for rural post offices, because thousands of post offices were closed under the last Government. We are not going to take lectures from Labour on saving rural sub-post offices, given the thousands that they closed.

Ian Murray: The day I take lectures from a Liberal Democrat in the Chamber is the day I leave the Chamber in utter shame. The key thing that the hon. Gentleman tends to forget is the fact that privatisation of Royal Mail will signal the final nail in the coffin for the post office network. The Government can trumpet mutualisation as much as they want, but the fact that they have kicked it into the long grass until 2016 shows how undeliverable it is. Why on earth are the Government talking about mutualisation for the post office, but are hellbent on privatising Royal Mail? Those two things are just not compatible.
	By continuing to pursue a policy that is ideologically driven, quite simply, Ministers and the Government are playing politics with the postage stamp. Let us be quite clear: this has nothing to do with postal services or the impact on the public, but is meant to save the blushes of a discredited Chancellor. Why are the Government not listening to the voices of the coalition of opposition, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), including the Countryside Alliance, the National Pensioners Convention, the Scottish Family Business Association, the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Conservative right-wing think tank, the Bow Group, the cross-party Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, and even the late Baroness Thatcher? A recent survey by the Communication Workers Union that showed that 96% of Royal Mail staff were against privatisation on a massive 76% turnout, despite the Government bribe to give them shares. If the Government do not want to listen to all those people, why does the Minister not listen to her colleague, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who took responsibility from her to privatise Royal Mail in the recent ministerial reshuffle? He said in a letter to the CWU on 11 February 2009:
	“I certainly do not support the...plans for privatisation.”
	Why does that Minister not even listen to himself?
	The British public, who are against privatisation 2:1, recognise that, and the Liberal Democrat manifesto—remember that document?—recognises it. The weakness of the Government’s case is absolutely clear. I say this quite seriously: Government Members who represent rural constituencies should think carefully about privatisation of Royal Mail, which they support, and how it will affect not just their constituents but the businesses in their constituencies that rely heavily on the post office network. Rural areas, more than most, rely on our much-cherished postal services. The overwhelming case is to keep Royal Mail in public hands and protect postal services for all our communities.

Jo Swinson: I congratulate the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and for Angus (Mr Weir) on securing this debate on the future of postal services in rural areas, for which the Backbench Business Committee has found time. The hon. Lady mentioned in her opening remarks that there have been particularly strong representations on the issue from parts of Scotland. It is lovely to return to these issues, as just a few weeks ago we had a good debate in Westminster Hall on the future of postal services, particularly in Scotland. I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised this afternoon.
	I will try to address as many as possible of the points made during the debate, focusing especially, as has much of the debate, on Royal Mail and the universal service, particularly in the light of the forthcoming privatisation. It is important to scotch the myths that have grown up during some of the speeches in this debate. I will also make sure that my remarks focus on the future of the Post Office because postal services relate not just to the delivery of letters and parcels, but to the wide range of postal services provided through the post office network.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way so early. In scotching one of those myths, could she deal at the outset with the issue of the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which stated:
	“49 per cent of Royal Mail will be sold to create funds for investment. The ownership of the other 51 per cent will be divided between an employee trust and the government.”
	Is that an accurate reading of the manifesto, and is that what the Government are proposing?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman is obviously an avid reader of the Liberal Democrat manifesto, perhaps unlike his hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann)—

Michael McCann: rose—

Jo Swinson: If the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow will let me finish the sentence first, he may be fortunate and I may be able to give way to him.
	Indeed, we recognised in the Liberal Democrat manifesto that Royal Mail would need an injection of private capital. Clearly, in the current plans at least 10% is guaranteed as worker shares. That is right and, importantly, it is set down in the Postal Services Act 2011. Obviously,
	the shape and format of the present proposals is not a carbon copy of what was in the manifesto. We are three years on from then and we are working within a coalition Government.

Michael McCann: May I remind the Minister that the Liberal Democrat manifesto committed also to full public ownership of the post office network? Can she explain how that sits with selling off the Crown post office network through franchising and with the Government’s plans to sell off most of Royal Mail, whereas the manifesto specified only 49%?

Jo Swinson: It is very important to make the point that the post office network remains in public hands. We need to get it on to a sustainable footing. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. The opportunity to mutualise the post office network ought to be welcomed not just on the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches, but on the Labour Benches, as it will ensure that ownership of such an organisation is more widely available to stakeholders within it, including not just sub-postmasters, but customers and others. That mutualisation process is an important part of the future of the Post Office.
	The hon. Gentleman mentions the Crown network. In our post office network of almost 12,000 branches, the vast majority of which, as has been outlined eloquently by many speakers in the debate today, are small sub-post offices. About 370 are Crown post offices in the busiest high streets and town centres. For those 373 offices to be losing more than £40 million a year, as they were when this Government came into office, is unsustainable. I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise, therefore, that getting the Crown network as well as the rest of the post office network on to a sustainable footing is essential to the future success of the Post Office.

Michael McCann: rose—

Jo Swinson: I will give way, then I want to make some progress.

Michael McCann: Will the Minister concede that the Liberal Democrat manifesto did not make that distinction between Crown post offices and all the smaller ones that she has just mentioned?

Jo Swinson: I am making the point clearly that the Government remain the key shareholder in Post Office Ltd and therefore accept that the Post Office is in public hands. I concede that we are suggesting that when it becomes financially sustainable it would be a positive future if the post office network could be mutualised, which would mean it would not remain in Government hands, but I would have thought that that was something the hon. Gentleman welcomed.
	With regard to the motion, I understand that with Back-Bench business we often have good debates on various issues and that votes are not common. I agree with much of the motion, but hope to be able to reassure the House on a couple of points. In relation to the claim that
	“the impending privatisation of Royal Mail will place a question mark over its willingness to maintain what may be loss-making services”
	and the reference to providing
	“more concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas”,
	I hope to reassure the House that the Government have long-term, concrete protections in place for postal services, and indeed that the Royal Mail will have to continue to provide the universal service. Many Members have raised that as a concern.
	In setting out the background to how we got where we are today, it is important to remember that the Government are implementing a package of key reforms recommended in Richard Hooper’s independent review, which was first commissioned in 2008 by the previous Government. He set out three clear recommendations that needed to be implemented as a package if the Government wanted to secure the future of the universal postal service: that they should tackle Royal Mail’s historic pension deficit; that responsibility for postal regulation should transfer from Postcomm to Ofcom; and that Royal Mail should have access to private capital to support its ongoing modernisation. The previous Government accepted those recommendations in full, but their Bill was subsequently dropped owing to market conditions.
	The Postal Services Act 2011, which was passed a little over two years ago, enables the Government to implement the full package of recommendations. As the House will be aware, we have now relieved Royal Mail of its historic pension deficit—I am glad that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran was able to welcome that move—and established a new regulatory regime under Ofcom, with stronger powers to protect the universal service. The third and final recommendation, to give Royal Mail future access to private capital, is now being progressed through the planned sale of shares in the company. That is a crucial element of the Hooper package. It will be positive for Royal Mail as a business, enabling it to respond to the changing needs and demands of postal users now and in the future. Most important, it will help secure a sustainable universal postal service in the UK.
	Many Members have rightly mentioned that the universal postal service is crucial to the UK’s economy and social fabric, particularly in rural communities, and the coalition Government recognise that. That is why the overarching objective of our postal market reforms is to secure the future provision of the universal postal service, the six-days-a-week service at uniform, affordable prices for everyone in the United Kingdom, regardless of whether they live in urban, suburban or rural communities.
	Various references have been made to whether that is a sufficient service or a minimum one, so I thought that it would be helpful to state what it actually means and what is set down in the legislation, which will continue to apply in the event of Royal Mail being sold: six-days-a-week delivery to the home or premises of every individual in the UK; six-days-a-week collection from every access point—post boxes and post offices—in the UK; a uniform, affordable tariff across the UK; the provision of a registered items service at uniform tariff; the provision of an insured items service at uniform tariff; free postage for the blind and partially sighted; and a free service of conveying qualifying legislative petitions. That is all set out in legislation, so regardless of ownership Royal Mail will continue to provide that universal service. The ownership change does not change that; only Parliament can change those requirements.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Lady not accept that what Members have been saying today is that the commercial pressures will be on both Royal Mail and the Government to reduce those universal service obligations if privatisation goes ahead?

Jo Swinson: It is up to Parliament to defend that universal service. That lies in Parliament’s power. We have protections in place through the 2011 Act because the Government recognised that that is an important service. [Interruption.] Members heckle from a sedentary position, but I highlight that it was the coalition Government who enshrined the universal service in legislation, not the previous Government. I think that it is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to ensure that we protect that, because it can be changed only if Members of Parliament decide to do so. I can certainly give an undertaking that I have no desire to do so. Perhaps Opposition Members are worried that they might feel under too much pressure and might cave in; that is all I can imagine must be the cause of the concerns they are raising.

Michael Weir: The Minister is ignoring the point that has been made consistently: the universal service might become endangered owing to privatisation and increased competition. She can stand there and say that it is enshrined in legislation, but if Royal Mail can no longer deliver, there is very little that Parliament can do to stop it collapsing; there are only Ofcom’s various processes, which, as I explained in my speech, are unlikely to work.

Jo Swinson: Of course, Ofcom, as the regulator, has a range of tools. The nub of the hon. Gentleman’s point—there is a sensible point that he is making—is that it is vital that Royal Mail can continue to deliver as a successful company, and one of the challenges it currently faces is its lack of ability to invest. The postal service market it changing rapidly—parcel delivery, in particular, is very much a growth area, as other hon. Member have outlined—and we need to ensure that the Post Office has the capacity to react to changing circumstances. That is why it needs to be able to access private capital and why that is a way of protecting the universal service obligation, rather than the contrary.
	Time is short and I would like to ensure that I mention post office matters, but on the issue of profitability and Royal Mail, which various hon. Members raised, I will put into context the challenges it faces. Competitors are investing significantly in their postal service markets and in improving their technology to deal with that. For example, Deutsche Post has invested more than €700 million over the past two years alone in its mail facilities and infrastructure and is focusing on another €750 million of investment by 2014. That is the type of investment that Royal Mail, in its market, ought to be looking at and that others in similar markets are looking at. That is why accessing private capital will be so important.
	The debate has also covered the post office network. I think it is important to point out clearly that Post Office Ltd is not for sale; as of 2012 it is formally separate from the Royal Mail Group and remains wholly owned by the Government. Issues of Government contracts have been raised. I point out to hon. Members that Post Office Ltd has won 10 of the 10 Government contracts it has bid for since 2010, and it has done so on merit.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about the important opportunity of high street banking being provided through post offices, and I absolutely agree. It is pleasing that 95% of high street bank accounts can now be accessed through local post offices. That network is very important, particularly in areas where many of the banks have closed their branches. I encourage hon. Members to bring that to the attention of constituents, as they might not be aware of it. Also, the Post Office is currently undertaking a current account pilot in the east of England, so current accounts can be available from the Post Office as a financial services provider across the rest of the country.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Jo Swinson: I will give way, but then I will have to bring my remarks to a close.

Lady Hermon: The Minister is very kind to allow me to intervene when she has only a few minutes left. I must say that, despite the assurances she has given in the Chamber this evening, there will remain a nervousness and anxiety right across Northern Ireland about the Government’s future intentions in relation to both Royal Mail and postal services. Will she kindly give a commitment that a senior member of the Department will come to Northern Ireland, visit rural and urban post offices and meet a representative group of postmasters and politicians?

Jo Swinson: I will certainly take the hon. Lady’s representation on board. I cannot give a commitment on when that can happen, but I thank her for the invitation.
	The 2010 spending review allocated a funding package of £1.34 billion to the post office network up to 2015, which is providing significant investment in the shape of network and Crown transformation. The new Post Office Local models are proving very successful, as indeed are the Post Office Main models. More than 1,750 sub-postmasters have signed contracts to convert their branches and nearly 1,000 are open—the 1,000th is expected to open this week. These new offices are reporting high levels of customer satisfaction; many Members will be aware of that because more than 400 have at least one in their constituencies.
	I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) about local branches. Where sub-postmasters wish to sell a going concern, it will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and if it is not viable for one of the new models it can be sold under the existing type of contract.
	I welcome this debate, which has featured contributions from all parts of the House and from all four nations. Postal services are indeed vital in rural areas, which is why the coalition Government are investing £1.34 billion to improve and modernise the post office network and putting Royal Mail on a sustainable future footing.

Katy Clark: This debate has been a useful occasion for Members in all parts of the House to express to the Government the genuine concerns in all parts of the United Kingdom about the implications should they decide to proceed with the privatisation of Royal Mail over the coming weeks. They have said that it is going to
	happen in this financial year, and there is therefore a real possibility that we might be revisiting this issue very soon. I hope that the Minister has been listening very carefully to what has been said. She represents a constituency with many rural post offices and will therefore have a strong constituency interest in the issue.
	Members in all parts of the House have spoken about the wide range of organisations that have concerns. I hope that the Minister will look at what those organisations are saying, particularly the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which points out that no substantial new work has been provided to the post office service. Until that new work is delivered throughout the country, we should not be proceeding in this direction.
	A number of Members have spoken about the importance of the competition regime and the impact that the new providers are having, particularly in London. I ask the Minister to see whether it is possible to ensure that the competition regime is on a level playing field so that all providers are acting in a way that enables Royal Mail to continue to provide a universal service. She has not come forward with long-term, concrete protection today. I hope that she will do so over the coming period before any proposals are brought to this House to announce that the Government are going to proceed with the privatisation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House recognises the vital contribution that Royal Mail makes to rural areas; notes that the six day a week collection and delivery service to rural and remote areas is invaluable to local life; further notes that the relationship Royal Mail has with the post office network is equally important for the continued survival of post offices; recognises that the impending privatisation of Royal Mail will place a question mark over its willingness to maintain what may be loss-making services; and calls on the Government to provide more concrete, long-term protections for postal services in rural areas, remote areas and islands while ensuring that the postal universal service obligation in its current form endures.

Cycling

Julian Huppert: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”; endorses the target of 10 per cent of all journeys being by bike by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2050; and calls on the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual Cycling Action Plan and sustained funding for cycling.
	It is a great pleasure to move this motion. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to schedule a debate on this subject after the success of our very well-attended debate last year in Westminster Hall, which showed just how many Members of this House care about cycling. We discussed all forms of cycling, from sport to commuting, leisure, utility and all-access cycling. It was clear from that debate that Members agreed that cycling was an energy-efficient form of transport, a healthy way to get around, a cheap means of travelling, and fun as well. No one who was there will forget the tale we heard of romance on a tandem.
	Since that debate, the all-party parliamentary cycling group, which I have the great pleasure of co-chairing with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), has conducted a detailed inquiry to make a series of recommendations on what Government ought to do to get Britain cycling, and we are now debating the resulting report. To produce it, we spoke to a wide range of people.

Tom Clarke: I am not at all surprised that this debate is so well attended. I want to put on record the representations that I have received from at least one constituent who wants us to focus still more on cycling as part of an improved environment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improving the road structure, pathways and so on is important not only because individuals want to take part in cycling but because it is a great attraction and opportunity for tourism in the areas we represent?

Julian Huppert: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I completely agree that there are huge benefits, some of which I will outline. He is absolutely right that tourism can benefit and that environmental concerns can be addressed. There are lots of benefits in getting Britain cycling.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress the benefits, but does he accept, as I hope most in the House would, that there are also associated tragedies? One thinks of Mary Bowers, who is still in a coma, and one thinks of the excellent campaign run by The Times, “Cities fit for cycling”. Does he accept that cycling is not only a marvellous, fit and healthy way to travel but should be protected and that cyclists should be safe?

Julian Huppert: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There have been a number of tragedies. Part of what we ought to do is to make sure that it is safe for people to cycle. In fact, it is fairly safe at the moment, but the perception is a problem. I agree that there are far too many tragic incidents such as that of Mary Bowers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Julian Huppert: Let me make a bit more progress and then I will give way.
	We spoke to a wide range of people—not only cycling organisations, which I thank for their assistance throughout the process, but the police, the freight industry, Living Streets, the president of the Automobile Association, and many others. I thank them all, and particularly those parliamentarians from both Houses who served on the panel, many of whom are here today, and Adam Coffman, who co-ordinated the entire process. There were hundreds of suggestions for recommendations, and those and more analysis can be found in the companion report by Professor Phil Goodwin, together with transcripts of the entire session.
	Currently, only about 2% of trips are made by bike—a tiny fraction, well below the levels found in many countries. A huge range of short trips that could easily be walked or cycled are driven. That is why we set a long-term ambition to try to increase that from 2% to 10% by 2025 and to 25% by 2050. That is entirely do-able and still below what the Dutch, for example, manage to achieve.

Meg Hillier: As the hon. Gentleman highlights, very few people cycle, but in my borough of Hackney we have a far higher percentage—more than 10% of people regularly cycle. Does he agree that that is testament to what can be done with forward thinking, good planning and a political will to achieve a change?

Julian Huppert: I thank the hon. Lady for her comment and for her work on the report. She is absolutely right that there are exemplars. In my constituency of Cambridge, about a third of trips are now made by bike. We are hoping to increase that to 40% with the money that has been given by the Government through the ambition grant. Some places are showing that they can do this, and the rest of the country can as well.

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government must provide funding, and they have been doing so, but it is also important for local authorities to be doing more. Let me quote what my constituent Adrian Lawson, the chairman of the Reading Cycling Campaign, said about Reading borough council:
	“We identified a lot of simple things that would make it immeasurably better for cyclists. This was over a year ago. Not a single thing has happened.”
	Does that not show that we also need local councils to implement measures?

Julian Huppert: Absolutely; local authorities have a crucial role to play.
	If more people were to cycle and walk, we would all benefit. We would be healthier, saving huge amounts of money—billions of pounds—for the NHS. There would be less congestion on the roads, making travel times faster and more reliable for those who are in cars. There would be less pressure on city centre parking, helping people to get to the shops and keep the economy going. The economy would grow. Cycling already contributes
	about £3 billion to the UK economy, but it is not always seen as significant as that. We all win by promoting cycling and walking.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I applaud the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and the Members who added their name to the motion. Cycling can be promoted not only in Cambridge but in extremely hilly and mountainous areas such as the constituency of Ogmore, with the right investment by the local authority and the voluntary sector in things such as safe routes to school, which link to safe routes to work, which then link to the Afan Argoed mountain bike track.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Cycling can indeed be encouraged anywhere in the country; the area does not have to be flat and dry like Cambridge.

Angie Bray: Ealing has a very strong reputation as a cycling borough. Schools there are playing their part in training young people using travel plans. Eight schools in Ealing have travel plans that are considered outstanding. Does my hon. Friend agree that using travel plans is an imaginative way for schools to train youngsters in cycling?

Julian Huppert: Travel plans are critical and the hon. Lady is right to highlight the role of schools, because training in schools makes a big difference. The Government have protected Bikeability funding. I received my own Bikeability training during the summer from Outspoken! Cycle Training in Cambridge. I learned quite a lot from that and it would be good to see other people receive it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Julian Huppert: I will take one more intervention from a Government Member and one more from an Opposition Member, and then I will make some progress.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I think now has the distinction of being fashionable. I am glad that page 15 of the report refers to the bridge over the railway tracks in Cambridge, which I funded and was delighted to be part of opening. On the issue of risk, does my hon. Friend agree that comparisons of risk per distance travelled are ludicrous when comparing walking, cycling, driving and flying? We ought to have risk per hour exposed, which would give people a far greater sense of the relative safety of cycling.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I thank him for his support for Cambridge cycling. Statistics can say all sorts of things. The most dangerous form of travel per trip is a space shuttle, and the safest per passenger mile is also the space shuttle. That shows the extremes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Julian Huppert: I am going to make some progress, because a lot of Members wish to speak in this debate.
	Our report makes 18 recommendations on five key themes. The first is for sustained investment in cycling in order to improve the infrastructure. The European
	standard is for funds to the order of £10 per person per year, hopefully rising to £20 per person per year. That is the sort of level the Dutch have sustained and that is what we need to make the difference. It will not happen overnight, but the benefits will substantially outweigh the costs according to almost every single study.
	Many of the improvements that would benefit cyclists, such as improvements to road quality, segregated cycle tracks and junction changes, would also benefit pedestrians and other road users. No conflict is necessary in improving the infrastructure.

Rushanara Ali: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Huppert: The hon. Lady has been patient, so I will take her intervention.

Rushanara Ali: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I want to draw the House’s attention to the death in my constituency in July of Philippine De Gerin-Ricard, a 20-year-old student who was tragically killed while cycling. In the previous year, two others were killed on the ring road. I fully support the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need for investment to make roads safer, for drivers as well as cyclists. What can be done to reduce the number of minor and major injuries, which have increased by 29% in the past year—a dramatic increase since the period between 2005 and 2009?

Julian Huppert: The point of a lot of what I will say will be about how we can reduce that number. Some of that is about infrastructure and some is about measures such as making heavy goods vehicles safer, which I will come on to discuss in detail.

Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?

Julian Huppert: No. I want to make progress; otherwise I am afraid others will not have the chance to speak.
	We have to make sure that other local and national bodies, such as local authorities and the Highways Agency, allocate proportionate funds to cycling, so that major road schemes such as the A14 in my constituency include appropriate cycle facilities along or across them. Other Departments should also get involved: there are benefits to health, education, sport and business. They should step out of their silos and get involved.
	We need to make our roads and cities fit for cyclists. Planners need to give consideration to cyclists and pedestrians right at the start of all developments, whatever they are. We also need new design guidance to provide a modern standard, not just paint on a pavement, which annoys cyclists and pedestrians alike. Local authorities can get on with the small schemes, as can the Highways Agency, which has agreed to our call for a programme to reduce the barriers its roads can cause to cycling.

Jim Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Huppert: No. I am not going to give way for a bit longer.
	Road travel is never perfectly safe and there is a lot we can do to make it safer. Infrastructure is key, but we can do other things, too. For example, 20 mph zones, which this Government support, are clearly beneficial, not only for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, but for the perceptions of safety for people who want to cycle or take their children cycling. Some rural lanes could be appropriate for a 40 mph speed limit.
	Hon. Members have talked about the number of tragic deaths. Sadly, too many of them have involved cyclists and HGVs. Steps have been taken by the Mineral Products Association, Cemex and others, but we need to push further for better vehicle design and better controls, and encourage HGVs not to use busy roads at peak times. Crossrail has led the way on much of that.

Jesse Norman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Huppert: I am sorry, but I want to make some more progress.
	Road traffic laws are broken too often and they should be enforced for all road users. When a serious driving offence takes place, especially if it results in death or injury, it must be treated seriously by police, prosecutors and judges. Far too often the sentences proposed are, frankly, trivial.
	We also need to encourage people to ride positively. Cycling should be seen as a safe and normal activity for people of all ages and backgrounds, as is the case in the Netherlands.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Julian Huppert: I want to make more progress, but I will give way later.
	Education will help. Bikeability should be available at all schools, and adults should also have the chance to learn to ride. We also need political leadership, and it is good to see the Transport Secretary enter the Chamber at this point. We need not just nice words from senior politicians—although I am pleased that the Prime Minister wanted personally to announce the recent substantial extra funding—but sustained support, including a cross-departmental action plan, with annual progress reports, a national cycling champion, a clear ambition to increase cycling and for Government at all levels to have a lead politician responsible for cycling.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Julian Huppert: I will take one intervention from each side of the Chamber.

Barry Sheerman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on securing this debate. He will know of my long-term interest, as chairman of the parliamentary advisory council for transport safety, in safety on the roads. Is he worried that at least a third of youngsters who get on a bike do not have any Bikeability training?
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about HGVs. What are we going to do about those whose steering wheels are on the other side of the vehicle, who have terrible blind spots and who cause many terrible accidents?

Julian Huppert: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the support that PACTS, along with many other organisations, has given to our report. I think that more training should be made available. It should not be compulsory, but we want to encourage people to feel comfortable. There is a lot more we can do to deal with HGVs.

John Hemming: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I have cycled in the UK and in Holland. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about meaningless bits of paint on pavements and trees in the middle of cycle routes, and does he agree that what we really need are segregated cycle paths?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I can see the hon. Gentleman is in free wheel, but I am going to put on the brake. We said 10 to 15 minutes, so I am sure Dr Huppert will have finished in a couple of minutes.

Julian Huppert: We all benefit from improving the take-up of cycling. To quote the president of the Automobile Association, Edmund King:
	“Implementation of the Get Britain Cycling recommendations would bring tangible business and economic benefits by reducing congestion, absenteeism, NHS costs and by producing a more creative and active workforce.”
	There speaks the voice of the automobile, and I entirely agree with him.
	Despite these benefits, Governments for decades have not sufficiently supported cycling. There has been massive investment in road infrastructure, but little for cycling; cyclists have often had small-scale provision, if any. Individual Ministers have tried, but they have not always received the support they need. I pay great tribute in particular to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who I believe is the longest ever serving Minister with responsibility for cycling. However, he is not able to deliver as much as he or I would like. He has done things such as announce extra money over the summer for the local sustainable transport fund, but we need more and it needs to be sustained.
	Many Ministers face a culture that points the other way—that focuses on car drivers only, to the detriment of others and without realising that fewer cyclists will result in more cars on the roads. I hope that one of the outcomes of our report and this debate will be to provide support for Ministers of all parties who want to make that difference—to turn welcome comments, such as those made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, into reality.
	On 12 August the Prime Minister said that cycling will be at the heart of future road developments. I hope we can make sure, through the impetus of this debate, the “Cities fit for cycling” campaign run by The Times, the excitement of the Olympics and the double Tour de France victory, that that will become a reality.

Ian Austin: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place. I also thank everybody who took part in the three-month inquiry and British Cycling, the CTC, Sustrans and the other organisations that helped us run
	it. I thank in particular Chris Boardman MBE—an Olympic gold medallist, world champion, great man and fantastic campaigner for cycling—for everything he does to promote cycling in Britain and for supporting our inquiry. Phil Goodwin and Adam Coffman pulled the report together and organised the inquiry.
	I thank News International for sponsoring the inquiry. Its involvement came about as a result of The Times’ brilliant campaign for cycling, which has been a breakthrough for cycling. I pay tribute to the current editor, John Witherow, and his predecessor, James Harding, and to Kaya Burgess, Phil Pank and Phil Webster, who have worked so hard on this campaign. It is brilliant campaigning journalism at its best.
	That campaign, as we heard a moment ago, was triggered by the tragic incident in 2011 that injured their colleague, Mary Bowers, so badly that she has still not regained consciousness. The driver who hit her was getting directions over the phone at the time. Mary was in his direct line of sight for at least 10 seconds, but he failed to spot her. He was found guilty of careless driving, fined £2,700 and banned from driving for just eight months. I therefore welcome the review by the Ministry of Justice of the all too often derisory sentences that are handed down to drivers when cyclists are killed or injured. We also need a comprehensive review of the justice system, from beginning to end, to ensure that the police enforce the law properly and that the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes people on stronger charges.

Meg Hillier: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had a lower speed limit for all road users, it would make life safer for cyclists and pedestrians?

Ian Austin: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our report recommended 20 mph speed limits in urban areas—something for which The Times has been campaigning. I pay tribute to the contribution that she made to the inquiry. It would not have been such a success and the report would not have been written in the way that it was if she had not done so much work.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot more can be done in schools to promote cycling proficiency, because safety is a very big element of this matter? Equally, should local authorities not do more through traffic management schemes?

Ian Austin: My hon. Friend is completely right. He did a lot of work on this matter when he was the leader of Coventry city council, before he became a Member of Parliament.
	I do not want to criticise the Minister for cycling. He is a good man, he fights hard for cycling and he is a keen cyclist himself. However, the Government’s response to our inquiry was disappointing to say the least. The Government have promised that
	“cycling will be at the heart of future road development”
	and their response stated:
	“The Government is committed to turning Britain into a cycling nation to rival our European neighbours.”
	If the Minister answers one question in this debate, I want him to tell us how those two promises can be taken seriously when the Netherlands spends £25 per head on cycling while the UK spends just £2 per head, and when
	the highways budget in the UK is £15 billion, but the funds announced for cycling are just £159 million, with no dedicated funding stream that allows local authorities to plan for more than two years.
	Our report makes a series of recommendations to boost cycling from less than 2% of journeys in 2011 to 25% by 2050. I ask the Minister why his Department’s response did not commit the Government to that target. We also want a national cycling champion to lead a drive for 10% of all journeys in Britain to be made by bike by 2025. As I said, the Minister fights hard for cycling and has done a good job of putting it on the agenda to the extent that it is. Although I do not want to criticise him personally, I point to the fact is that he is a junior Minister from the junior party in the coalition, so it will always be difficult for him. We need someone with Cabinet-level clout to get different Departments working together.

Chris Ruane: Promote him to the Cabinet! [Laughter.]

Ian Austin: Okay. I also want to ask the Minister why the Government have not agreed to the appointment of a cycling champion.
	Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) cannot be here because two members of his family have health issues. He wanted to call for a more comprehensive cycling strategy. He welcomes the £835,000 grant to improve the cycling safety of the Plain in Oxford, but wanted to point out that that is a tiny fraction of the money that is needed to bring Oxford’s cycle network up to an entirely safe standard.
	We think that more of the transport budget should be spent on supporting cycling, with an initial rate of at least £10 per person per year. That would increase as the level of cycling goes up. I welcome the recent announcement by the shadow Secretary of State for Transport that she would use a proportion of road spending to build long-term cycling infrastructure. Most of the spending that was mentioned in the Government’s response had already been announced. Why will the Minister’s Department not shift resources in that way?
	London has spent five times as much on cycling per person as the rest of the UK in the past 10 years. The benefits of that are clear from the huge growth in cycling in the capital.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Ian Austin: I will not take any more interventions, because I want to allow everybody else to speak.
	Given the benefits of cycling to the economy and the huge savings it could bring to the NHS, there could be huge benefits in the long run. Cyclists are fitter and healthier than the population as a whole and less of a demand on the NHS, so will the Minister say why the Department of Health, which has a budget of £1 billion, last week committed just £1 million to cycling over the next two years? Making cycling safer in local residential streets would also help. That is why our report calls for lower speed limits in urban areas. The campaign by The Times calls for 20 mph to be the default limit in residential areas that do not have cycle lanes.
	The Government need to ensure that cycling provision and safety are considered at the outset of all major developments. That is the central point in British Cycling’s road safety manifesto. I am therefore pleased that the shadow Secretary of State is committed to the introduction of new cycle safety assessments for all new transport schemes. Given that local roads and planning are the responsibility of local councils, it is a shame that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has indulged in populist calls for councils to ignore cycling and to do more to help motorists.
	I am a cyclist and a motorist. Most of us are both. In fact, cyclists are more likely to own a car than the general population, so let us have no more of the cheap, populist nonsense that tries to set drivers against cyclists. We should all be working together to improve safety on the roads.
	Finally, this debate is just the next stage of our campaign to get Britain cycling. We should use the inquiry and today’s debate to drive cycling up the agenda. It is fantastic that so many MPs are here for this debate on the first day back when there is a one-line Whip. Let us make cycling an election issue, with local cyclists getting candidates to sign pledges and with the parties competing to produce the best manifesto for cycling. Let us continue the campaign to get Britain cycling.

Steve Brine: I was fortunate to sit on the “Get Britain Cycling” inquiry earlier this year. There was huge interest in what we were doing. When we started the inquiry, we were the best trending name on Twitter. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for securing this debate and to Adam Coffman, who put so much work into making it a professional, Select Committee-style inquiry.
	In the short time available to me, I will focus on three areas: vision and leadership, which for me is where it starts and ends; the design issue; and the summer of cycling in my constituency. I am extremely proud of the report and believe that it stands up really well. Having read it again in writing these remarks, I think that it will age well. We launched the report in April and the Government responded last week. In the light of everything that has happened since we produced the report, I think that is more relevant now than when we launched it.
	On leadership, it is no coincidence that one of the first points in the report is the need for
	“vision, ambition and strong political leadership”.
	As the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) said, we recommend the appointment of a national cycling champion. I share his regret that that recommendation was not accepted in last week’s Government response. It is all too easy to regard such things as somebody else’s responsibility. The Minister need not look further than City hall, where Andrew Gilligan is the Mayor’s cycling champion, for a good example of how a cycling champion can work.

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Does he agree that leadership at a local level is important? I have seen the difference in my borough as the political leaders have started to take this issue much more seriously and to engage much more vigorously with local cycling campaigners. That really makes a difference.

Steve Brine: It is funny that my hon. Friend should say that, because my next line states that our report says that every local authority should appoint a lead politician who is responsible for cycling. I want the report to give birth to mini Borises across the country. Bearing in mind that we did not launch the report until April, that is quite a short gestation period.
	I find it bizarre that we even needed to say that each local authority should have a lead politician. Winchester had a cycling champion long before the report was produced. This must not be about just giving somebody a new line on their letterhead. The cycling champion must be a councillor who is at the heart of the administration, as they should be at the national level. They must have the necessary political clout and authority to drive things through with their colleagues at cabinet level and with the key officers and the chief executive.
	The cycling action plan should not be marked as being in the cycling folder; it should be part of the council’s health, tourism and economic strategy, and an integral part of the council’s strategy should be to make it work. How many MPs in the House have sent a copy of the report, or an e-mail with the link, to their chief executive or leader of their local council? How many know who the cycling champion is for their area and—more importantly—what they do?
	I am not trying to be the lead councillor for cycling in my constituency—if I wanted to be a councillor, I could have a far easier life. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I notice the double-hatters looking at me—how to win friends and influence councillors. I am trying to push the issue up the agenda locally, working with the marvellous councillors I have in my constituency. I hope soon to sit down with councillors from Winchester and Hampshire county council, and start putting some lines on maps.

Robert Buckland: I think my hon. Friend is genuine in his praise for councillors such as the lead member in Swindon, Councillor Keith Williams, who is a triathlete and passionate cyclist. Does my hon. Friend agree that with local leadership such as that which I have described we will improve cycling facilities in towns such as Swindon? Department for Transport funding for improved links between west Swindon and the town centre is an example of how cyclists will find things safer in the long term.

Steve Brine: Yes, I agree. What I said about putting lines on maps is an expression I borrowed from Andrew Gilligan, who came to see the all-party cycling group on the eve of launching the Mayor’s cycling strategy for London. One thing he took us through was that putting lines on maps is not easy; land belongs to Transport for London or to the boroughs, and somebody had to try and pull that together. It was the leadership of the Mayor and of Andy—

Marcus Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Steve Brine: I will not because time is tight and I know other hon. Members want to get in. The way in which Crossrail for cyclists was chiselled out is impressive and a blueprint of what people should be doing—I know what is being done in Swindon.
	In my constituency we have made significant progress, for example with national cycle network route 23. However, somebody needs to grab the bull by the horns—or perhaps grab the highlighter pen—and sit down and put those lines on the maps. Then the leadership can really shine through. Will that happen? Well, ultimately it requires the leader of the council to do that. Councillor Keith Wood, who leads the majority council in my constituency, is interested in cycling and keen on cycling, but as he knows, I want to see passion and more leadership from him on that issue.
	On design and planning, I am a passionate believer in segregated cycle routes, especially on main busy roads. I have seen them in other parts of the continent and they have to make sense, particularly if we are hopeful of getting children to stay cycling, especially after they have got their driving licence. As those who have read it will know, the report recommends a statutory requirement that cyclists’ needs are considered at an early stage of all new development schemes, and I welcome the new national planning policy framework introduced in 2011. It sets out clearly that including facilities for cycling and walking should be part of delivering sustainable development, but as we know, too often at present those things are not included, which in my book is a wasted opportunity. What is set out in the NPF needs to catch up quickly and become the norm.

Seema Malhotra: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Brine: I will not if the hon. Lady does not mind.
	I have one opportunity in my constituency right now where the developer, CALA Homes, has permission for 2,000 houses on the highly controversial—to put it mildly—Barton farm site. The developer was an early recipient of a copy of this report, and my challenge today is this: “Make us proud of your development at Barton farm. Put cycling at the heart of your development, not just in new cycle routes into and through the area, but by linking up with existing cycle connections. You will make a lot of people very pleased with you, after gathering planning permission in the way you did.”
	The report also states that local authorities should seek to deliver cycle-friendly improvements across existing roads, including small improvements and segregated routes. Of course they should. I am not a dyed-in-the-lycra person on this—imagine! I am realistic: Winchester’s ancient Saxon streets will not suddenly all have segregated cycle routes, but there are great opportunities in my constituency to do that.
	Finally, the Highways Agency should draw up a programme to remove the barriers to cycling. Junction 9 of the M3, which the Minister knows, has received significant Government funding for pinch-point improvements that will be done later this year. We are increasing two lanes to three and bringing traffic closer to cyclists, which seems a missed opportunity. Therefore, my other challenge to the Minister and the Highways Agency is to see whether we can look again at junction 9 of the M3 on the edge of my constituency and come up with something that is a compromise for cyclists and for drivers.
	In conclusion, the report is about getting Britain cycling and much good stuff is taking place in my constituency and across the country. The VC Venta
	cycling club in Winchester has seen its membership rise by 300% since the Olympics, and the Winchester CycleFest this summer, which culminated in the Criterium high-speed cycle race through Winchester on 11 August, was fantastic. “Get Britain Cycling”—yes, we are doing it, but we must scale it up and this report is part of the blueprint for how we do that.

Chris Ruane: In 2006, four members of the Rhyl cycling club in my constituency were killed in the worst ever cycling accident in British history. They were Tom Harland, aged 14, Maurice Broadbent, aged 61, Dave Horrocks, aged 55, and Wayne Wilkes, aged 42. Two years before that accident young Tom Harland visited the House of Commons and I took him round. His father, John Harland, is a personal friend of mine. The club and families involved were faced with the decision of whether to crumple—both personally and as a club—or whether to thrive. They chose to thrive and I would like to outline some of the successes for cycling in my constituency since 2006, which I think could be replicated around the country.
	John Harland got together a group of people, including a chap called Gren Kershaw, who was the ex-head of our local health board, and they had an idea, a vision, for cycling in my constituency, based around Marsh Tracks. In the intervening years, Marsh Tracks has opened, and includes a five-star BMX track with an Olympic starting gate and a £1.2 million floodlit off-road cycleway. It is now being extended with a mountain bike track over a 3 km area. Those are fantastic cycling facilities. The local authority has developed miles and miles of off-road cycleways connecting the towns of Rhyl, Prestatyn, Rhuddlan, St Asaph, Dyserth and Bodelwyddan, and connecting Rhyl college, the local hospital and St Asaph business park—all those key sites are connected off road to the cycleways.

Catherine McKinnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Ruane: Yes, because I want the extra minute.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity. He is making a powerful speech. Many constituents have asked me to come to this debate to make representations on their behalf, and in particular on behalf of their children. As cyclists, my constituents worry not only for themselves and their safety, but for that of their children, and many of them have asked me to press the Minister on making cycle urban infrastructure development compulsory as part of the legislation on cycling and urban planning. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Chris Ruane: I think I have lost that minute—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend owes me 15 seconds but I agree with her and will come to the education side of that point in a moment.
	We were also successful in getting £4.5 million for a purpose-built cycling bridge over Foryd harbour in my constituency. That will be part of the Sustrans national coastal cycling network around the UK. On 26 September I will meet Network Rail to see whether we can get a disused railway to connect the coastal path to the
	country paths further inland. They are currently cut across by a railway bridge, and we want to use an adjacent railway bridge to connect the coastal path to the country, so that the coast will be connected to the castles and cathedrals in my constituency.
	I recently met Adrian Walls, a cycleways officer from Denbighshire county council, who is developing a mountain bike route in my constituency. He has not finished yet—it will be probably be finished in about six weeks and will be a state-of the-art mountain bike route. However, I do not think that the fantastic facilities I have outlined in my speech are being used sufficiently. The task is getting pupils in our schools and colleges, and workers, to use those facilities—those multi-million pound investments—which I believe are under-utilised in my constituency. How do we make the most of them? I have met council officers and enthusiasts, who have come up with a vision for a centre of cycling excellence in my constituency, which will be tied in to the back-to-work agenda. It will include cycle maintenance, and importing, assembling and selling cycles. That fantastic facility on our doorstep will be used to train local people, including unemployed people from some of the poorest wards in Wales.
	Hon. Members have spoken of tying the cycling agenda to the health agenda. Denbighshire has high obesity levels. How do we get general practitioners to write cycling prescriptions? That has been done in other areas, including in London—Brent and Tower Hamlets have done it. People who suffer from diabetes, arthritis and a range of illnesses would benefit tremendously from cycling. If cycling prescriptions are available in Brent and Tower Hamlets—

Stephen Pound: And Ealing.

Chris Ruane: And Ealing. If it has been done in those places, why can it not be done throughout the country? If we have fantastic and safe facilities in my constituency, why can we not use them? They are floodlit. We could use them for 16 hours a day.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend is outlining the need for co-operation to achieve an outcome across policy areas, from health and local government to sport and recreation. That will be achieved only if there is a cross-Government message from the top. The message needs to be not only on cycling, but on sport, and on recreational and physical activities across the board.

Chris Ruane: All hon. Members would have been sent to swimming lessons when they attended school. Cycling lessons should be on a par with those.

Nia Griffith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Ruane: I am afraid I will not.
	People are much more likely to cycle than they are to go to their local baths. The profile of cycling therefore needs to be raised in education, which needs leadership from the top. Departments should talk to Departments, including the Department of Health, the Department for Education and the Department for Transport. We could train young people properly and to cycle safely. One idea we discussed in recent meetings was having a
	safe area where people can take toddlers as young as two or three years old to teach them how to cycle. In centres such as the one we are developing in Rhyl, we could teach 90-year-olds to regain the confidence to get back on their bikes. We should advocate cradle-to-grave cycling.
	A lot has been done in my constituency and a lot more needs to be done. Cycling could transform tourism in many areas. My home town, Rhyl, is a seaside town. The Prime Minister said a few weeks ago that it was neglected—he has visited only once, for 10 minutes, in his whole life. We are having £200 million-worth of investment in my home town, including a £17 million new harbour with a £4.5 million dedicated cycle bridge. The potential of cycling tourism is massive.

Andrew Bingham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My constituency has had Government money for our “Pedal Peak” project. We look forward to welcoming an influx of cyclists of all abilities who will come to enjoy the benefits of the Peak district.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman is right.
	We want cyclists of all abilities and ages, including the people who learned to cycle when they were children but who have lost their confidence. Millions of people will not go back on a bicycle because they have lost that confidence. We have a chance of developing throughout the country facilities such as those in my constituency to give back that confidence.
	I reflect on the terrible tragedy we experienced in 2006. It was a bad thing that happened, but good came of it.

Mike Thornton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this fantastic debate. He has long been a vocal advocate of cycling, and I pay tribute to his tireless work. I congratulate all members of the all-party group, who have done such a fantastic job. I will not speak for very long—I do not have long, so that is okay and I am sure hon. Members are pleased about that. I shall emphasise the health and economic benefits, which hon. Members have mentioned, and describe my experience of cycling.
	I used to cycle a lot when I was less well off and gave up when I could afford a car, but I have cycled into my local town of Eastleigh for shopping and other things. It does not feel that safe. One of my best friends, a physicist by profession, has cycled all over the country. His comments and knowledge are invaluable. The uncertainty principle applies to his cycling, too.
	I remember disagreeing with my daughter on whether she should wear a helmet. Helmets are contentious. Some say that wearing a helmet is good and some say it is bad. Whatever one’s views, one must admit that parents, rightly or wrongly, feel their hearts in their mouths when they see their child go out cycling. That is probably one of the constraints on children cycling.

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend makes an important point on wearing cycle helmets. Independent studies have shown clearly that wearing cycle helmets saves
	lives and cuts down on injuries. Last year, I called on the Department for Transport to issue a definitive and independent report on the benefits and costs of introducing a law requiring children to wear cycle helmets. Would he welcome such a report?

Mike Thornton: There is a difficulty with wearing cycle helmets. I tried to get my daughter to wear one, and she stopped cycling. I do not know whether I did the right or wrong thing in trying to force her to wear a helmet. I worried a bit less, but she stopped cycling.

Ian Austin: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman says his daughter stopped cycling when she was forced to wear a helmet, because that is exactly what happened in Australia. When a law requiring people to wear helmets was introduced there, cycling numbers plummeted. We can make cycling safe by getting more people to do it. The more people cycle, the safer it is. That is how we make cycling safer in Britain.

Mike Thornton: I admit that I do not know the answer. My brother came off a bicycle and was badly injured because he was not wearing a helmet. I am in two minds about the argument, but I understand both sides.

Chris Ruane: You’re a Liberal. What do you expect?

Mike Thornton: I am also a father and a brother, so what do you expect?
	We are fortunate in the borough of Eastleigh to have more than 44 km—30-odd miles—of dedicated cycling routes. It is difficult to have such routes because of the criss-crossing motorways, railway lines and watercourses. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), my constituency neighbour, has mentioned some of the problems. Part of the Sustrans cycle network 24 is routed directly behind my constituency office in Leigh road—hon. Members will remember that from a certain election. National cycle route 23, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend, stretches from Reading to the Isle of Wight. National cycle route 2 runs along the coastline all the way to St Austell in Cornwall—my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) has left the Chamber. We are immensely proud to have Dani King, one of our gold medal winners.
	With all that, hon. Members might think that cycling in Eastleigh would be on the up. Unfortunately, the number of people cycling to work has continued to stick at around 2%. One would think it would be a lot better, especially when one considers how effective the borough’s environmental and green policies have been under the leadership of Councillor Bloom.

Neil Carmichael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to intervene in this important and popular debate. Does he agree that the link between cyclists and the public transport network is the real issue in getting people to cycle to work, and that we should make it easier to store bikes in places such as railway stations? That would encourage people to link up with public transport.

Mike Thornton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I have noticed that it is sometimes difficult to get a bicycle on to a train, which is a great shame. That should
	be encouraged as much as possible. Perhaps there should be more areas for bicycles on trains and buses, and for locking up bicycles.

Oliver Colvile: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mike Thornton: May I keep going?
	We need more areas where people can leave their bicycles safely when they go to work.
	The report of the all-party group on cycling sets out perfectly why the status quo is maintained. Nearly half of all Britons own or have access to a bike, but we do not use them. Safety is the No. 1 concern. We are still frightened for ourselves and our children, even if not for a rational reason. Extending 20 mph zones, as the report proposes, is therefore extremely important.
	As other hon. Members have mentioned, we need to do something about HGVs. We cannot always blame HGVs for not seeing cyclists. We need to ensure better visibility and sensors to minimise the risks to cyclists, and make cyclists realise that they cannot necessarily be seen. That is particularly difficult with children, who do not have the same road sense as grown-ups.
	Many of my constituents have told me how dangerous road surfaces are. Trying to swerve around a pothole or street furniture can cause all sorts of problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester mentioned indicative lines that do not tell us anything. When one comes into Winchester—it is outside my constituency, so I apologise—there are some nice pictures of bicycles. One says, “Yes, that’s a lovely picture of a bicycle. What good on earth is that doing?” Segregated bicycle lanes, as has been mentioned, are vital.
	I agree entirely that new developments should be cycle-proofed. Cycling should be incorporated into all planning policies. When there is a new development—we are getting one in my constituency—it should be cycle-proofed. I think we would all agree that that will pay for itself. The report states that cycling demonstration towns saw a 27% increase in cycling from 2005 to 2009. The financial benefits were estimated to be nearly £64 million, from a cost of £18 million—a particularly strong piece of evidence. The report also shows that every pound spent on cycling can save the NHS £4—again, economics wins the argument.
	I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent announcement to increase funding for cycling, but the lion’s share will go to eight select cities, seven of which already exceed the national average for cycling. In addition, the funding has been earmarked for only two years. The announcement was welcome, but what about the rest of us? My constituents in Eastleigh could do with some dosh. We need a nationwide commitment to increase the per head cycling budget. I think we are looking for £10 per head by 2025 and up to—what is it?—£50. That is vital.
	What I have heard today is a remarkable degree of consensus among cycling organisations, cyclists, local authorities and hon. Members about what needs to be done. That is extremely positive. We must ensure that we capitalise on that and that something is done. I fully support the motion and the report’s recommendations, and I thank the group for its hard work.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the co-chairs of the all-party group, of which I am a member, on the report. It is sponsored by The Times, which I congratulate too. I should declare that The Times is still in Wapping in my constituency, so there is a little bit of self-interest there. Other national newspapers—The Guardian and The Independent—have been trying to catch up and are supporting the campaign. My comments will be made as a Londoner and as a London cyclist, and will not necessarily reflect issues in other parts of the country.
	I invited my constituents, through the social media of Twitter, Facebook and the East London Advertiser,to contribute to the debate by raising issues that they thought I might want to mention. I was staggered by the response—more than 50 people e-mailed or tweeted issues that are of importance to them. I am very limited for time and cannot name them all, but I will list some of them. Before doing that, I want to thank the cycle firms in my constituency, in particular Bikeworks, a social entrepreneurial group that does great work and made a running repair to my bike in half an hour last Wednesday morning to get me back on the road, and also Halfords and Evans, which are national organisations that support cycling in Tower Hamlets and in the community.
	I will run through the list of issues raised by my constituents: keeping cycle routes clear when there are roadworks and parking problems; cycle superhighways not being up to the necessary standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) raised the incident of the Aldgate East fatality—with just a coat of paint on a road and nothing more; and lower speed limits, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North. Cycle training and education in schools was mentioned by several hon. Members. That is critical. I am doing an Industry and Parliament Trust Fellowship on logistics. I spent some time with TNT, which trains its postal delivery people to ride bikes. When they have down time, they partner local schools to train the kids there. If TNT can do it, the question to the Minister is this: is Royal Mail doing it? There must be other companies out there that could contribute, too.

Hugh Bayley: Royal Mail is doing that. It has a cycle workshop in my constituency, which maintains 500 bicycles used by the Royal Mail in the Greater York area.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the extra time he has given me; I knew that somebody would respond positively on behalf of Royal Mail.
	Questions have been raised about HGVs and the fear factor, a road deaths investigation board and improved statistics on serious injuries and fatalities. The Home Office and the Department for Transport have always resisted a fatalities inquiry board for road traffic fatalities because there are just too many of them, but we have to raise the bar and look more seriously at investigating more thoroughly the fatalities on our roads.
	Other issues raised include: congestion charging and road closures to force traffic to surrender more space to cyclists; advanced stop areas; earlier green lights for cyclists; blitz enforcement of transgressors—whether car drivers or cyclists—in advance areas; cycle storage; and mandatory helmets. I know that many people are opposed to making helmets mandatory. I am in favour, but it is not going to happen. The evidence against it coming from Australia and America is somewhat time-limited. If we get our kids using helmets in schools, they will graduate into wearing them.

Ben Bradshaw: No one who is favour of cycling should be against encouraging people to wear helmets, but will my hon. Friend accept that the overwhelming evidence—not just in Australia, but from all over the world—is that where cycle helmets have been made compulsory the impact on cycling has been negative, and therefore the overall public health impact has been negative?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I hear what my right hon. Friend says and there is a cultural question here. I am sure we all watched the 100th Tour de France this year. All the way down the decades of historic footage, none of the cyclists were wearing helmets. Every Tour de France rider now wears a helmet. That is professional leadership. They are in the game of minimising and mitigating risk, and they give a lead to all cyclists.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Jim Fitzpatrick: If I have time at the end I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to get through the points raised by my constituents.
	The last two negatives raised related to fatalities and punishment to fit the crime. We all hear tragic stories from constituents about punishments that do not fit the crime. On the conversion of wider pavements, Boris Johnson certainly has that in London, particularly on the Embankment.
	What I find fascinating is the counter-culture that comes through from my cyclist constituents. They complained about bad cycling behaviour and said that the cycle demographic in our country is mainly young, white, aggressive and male. That is why we do not “go Dutch” and why many people are put off cycling: they see a race track and do not want to join it. We need to address that problem, and the only way we are going to do so is through enforcement against those who cross red lights and pedestrian crossings.
	People complained about cyclists who disregard the rules by wearing earphones; running red lights; crashing pedestrian crossings; not signalling whether they are turning left or right; not warning when they are overtaking; riding on pavements; using mobile phones; speeding on the Thames path; not ringing to alert pedestrians or other cyclists that they are overtaking on tow paths; swearing at pedestrians—some cyclists, like some drivers, think that they are entitled to a free run at the road; not dismounting in foot tunnels; not having lights; not having bells and not wearing high-visibility clothing. Cyclists are not perfect. We have to give a lead to
	cyclists to say, “We should show a better example in the way we behave, to ensure that drivers behave in the way we want them to.”
	In conclusion, my wife Sheila and I visited Amsterdam and Copenhagen recently. There is less racing, more sensible cycling and a much wider demographic; there is a different culture. We must have that more varied cycling demographic in our country. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State recently asked two questions of the Government. First, why do we have annual road and rail budgets to 2021, but not one for cycling? Secondly, why do we not have cycle safety assessments, similar to economic and equality impact assessments, for all road schemes?
	My final question is about something that is raised in the report—I am not quite clear about the Government’s response—which said that we should have champions.

Julian Huppert: The issue with cycle helmets is that although they might save some lives, the countervailing loss of life from people not cycling and being less fit massively outweighs that. Indeed, one academic analysis suggested an extra 250 or so deaths a year net.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for that intervention. That discussion needs to be had, and I am happy to ensure that we are raising it tonight.
	My final question to the Minister is this. The report says that we should have national, regional and city champions. It is not clear from the Government’s response whether he is the national champion or not. If he is not, he should be. When will he recruit his regional and city-wide teams?

Sarah Wollaston: First, the good news: if people start cycling in middle age, they will have a fitness level that makes them effectively 10 years younger. Hon. Members should think what that would achieve for everybody in the Chamber. Not only that, but the life expectancy of those people will increase by two years, so the benefits-to-risk ratio is around 20:1. Therefore, whatever else happens in this debate and our discussions about reducing the risks and improving the safety of cyclists, let us not forget the benefit and the joy of cycling, and persuade as many people as possible to get cycling.
	If we are to get Britain cycling, we have to consider the persuasive arguments and the benefits. For instance, problems with obesity are currently costing the NHS around £5 billion a year. Even if cycling does not necessarily make people skinny—I am speaking from personal experience—it is better to be fit and a little bit flabby than not fit and a little bit flabby. However, this is not just about the physical health benefits; it is also about mental health benefits and the effects that have been shown on brain ageing among people who manage to keep fit. The health economic assessment tool, or HEAT, which is adopted by the World Health Organisation, shows a £4 benefit for every £1 spent. Will the Minister say in his response whether such an assessment has been made for, say, High Speed 2? I cannot help thinking that we would leave a far happier, more lasting and healthier legacy for Britain if we spent just a fraction of what we are spending on HS2 on this issue—or possibly even on both.

Henry Bellingham: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. What she said about the miracle improvements to one’s health is fascinating. A lot of money will be spent in the conurbations and in London, but does she agree that it is important that rural areas are not neglected in the great drive to get more people cycling? Does she also agree that cyclists are obviously at a big disadvantage on small rural lanes? We need more rural speed limits and more investment in safer highways in rural areas.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank my hon. Friend. Rural speed limits are important. In fact, the introduction of networks of 40 mph speed limits on rural roads had a great benefit in Holland. There is a lot of evidence to support their use, but this is about money. I welcome the £10 a head in the eight cities that will benefit and the spending in, for example, the Dartmoor national park in my part of the world, but that is not what the report called for. Our report called for £10 a head nationally and for us to think of the benefits—a real, lasting legacy—that that could achieve.
	However, this is also about speed, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Let us look at the benefits we would see if we had 20 mph speed limits in urban areas. Too often, highways departments look at accident data before making decisions about speed limits. However, we all know that parents will not let their children cycle in the first place if they do not feel they are safe, and the perception of safety is strongly linked to the speed at which the traffic is travelling. We should look at speed limits across the board. I recently visited Falcon Park in Torbay, which is a park home development with many elderly residents who cannot walk down the road, let alone cross it, because of high-speed traffic. In any other residential area, the speed limit would have been reduced to 30 mph.
	This is not only about 20 mph limits in towns and cities on a network of roads; it is about reducing speed across the board and assessing our priorities. Whom do we prioritise? Are we prioritising vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists, or are we prioritising the motorist and speed? We need to change our priorities completely to achieve that. It does not take a great deal of money to reduce speed limits—everyone recognises that there is a financial imperative—but the issue is not just reducing the speed limit, but enforcing it. We heard shocking evidence in our inquiry about a level of complacency towards enforcement. What discussions have taken place across Departments to ensure that welcome changes in the issuing of fixed penalty notices for careless driving will be extended to penalising people who breach speed limits directly? It is immediate consequences that will drive change.

Andrew Selous: I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend is delighted to see the Government Chief Whip in his place. He must be the grandfather of parliamentary cycling. On enforcement, does she agree that although motorists should absolutely do the right thing and obey the rules, it is also incumbent on cyclists to obey rules, and that a small minority of cyclists give most cyclists a bad name on occasion by not obeying The Highway Code?

Sarah Wollaston: I certainly agree with that. Indeed, if hon. Members want to see evidence of how cycling makes people look 10 years younger, they only have to look at the Chief Whip. [Laughter.] [Hon. Members: “He’s only 80!] He does not look a day over 80.
	Of course segregated cycling routes are the best option, and of course they are expensive, but sometimes they are not as expensive as they look. In many areas we see examples of small groups of individuals being allowed to stand in the way of low-cost options to create off-road routes. We need to get to grips with that.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sarah Wollaston: I am sorry, but if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have taken two interventions.
	In my area, the South Devon Railway, which was given a bridge that was built half with public money, has treated the River Dart as though it were some kind of moat and has prevented the sharing of that bridge. Such situations are simply unacceptable. That bridge must be the only one in Devon that keeps communities apart rather than brings them together. I call on the South Devon Railway and those involved in all such examples around the country to recognise that they have an opportunity to increase the sum of human happiness. In Totnes, the South Devon Railway has an opportunity to create a link that would join up the national cycle network and, in so doing, increase the footfall for its business. I think we all recognise that cycling has enormous benefits beyond health, with economic benefits for communities. I hope that the South Devon Railway will listen to this debate and take a generous step forward by helping us to create that link.
	I would like to deal briefly with the issue of cycle helmets, which has been brought up today. I agree with the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) that the trouble with making them compulsory would be a net reduction in cycling. Of course, it is sensible for anyone who has a helmet to wear it, but what would happen to the wonderful Boris bikes scheme in London if we made the wearing of them compulsory? No one would use it. Yes, if people have a helmet, they should wear it, but they should not be put off if they do not. Most important, they should not feel that they need special kit. Cycling is for everyone. The statistics show that it will make us live longer and be happier, so let us remember the joys of cycling. Let us get Britain cycling and find the money to make that happen.

Ben Bradshaw: As a previous chairman of the all-party parliamentary cycling group, in what seems like the distant past of the 1997 Parliament, I am delighted by the profile that cycling has gained in the past 16 years. I believe that this is the best-attended debate on cycling that the House has ever had, and I understand that, outside this place, we are witnessing the biggest ever pro-cycling demonstration that this country has ever seen.
	I have always cycled. As a youngster, my bike gave me independence and the freedom to roam. I cycled to school, I have always cycled to work and I use my bike daily in Exeter and in London. It is simply the best form
	of transport. When asked why I am still slim at 53, when I eat so much, I tell people that the answer is simple: my bike. My elderly Dawes Audax is the most important thing in my life, except—I should add, as he is outside with the demonstrators—my husband.
	When I first worked in London in 1991, I cycled to work because it was the quickest and most reliable way to get there. It helped to keep me fit and to keep my carbon emissions down, but I felt like a bit of a freak. It was a very unusual thing to do. I remember fighting in this place during the 1997 Parliament for a single cycle route through Kensington Gardens. It was a hard battle, but we won. When I suggested to my local authority in Exeter that it should apply to the then Labour Government to be one of their cycle demonstration towns, I was told, “You won’t get anyone cycling here, it’s too hilly.” Well, Exeter did apply, and we got the extra investment. Between 2006 and 2011, cycling rates in Exeter rose by a fantastic 50%.

Stephen Pound: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, were his council to introduce a 20 mph speed limit, there could be even more dramatic improvements?

Ben Bradshaw: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. There is actually a 20 mph limit through much of Exeter, but the problem is that the Conservative county council and, I have to say, Devon and Cornwall police, do not enforce it. This problem has already been raised by several Members, and it needs to be stressed further. It is vital to have 20 mph limits, but they must be enforced.
	Not only has cycling increased by 50% in Exeter, but more than 20% of school children there now cycle to school, whereas hardly any did before. In London, too, the situation has been transformed. Thanks to the congestion charge and other policies initiated by Ken Livingstone, there has also been a cycling revolution here. It warms my heart to see banks of cyclists at all the main junctions at commuting time, particularly young women and even parents with child seats and trailers. However—and this is the hub of the report we are debating today—in spite of the progress that we have made in the past 16 years or so, we are still far behind the best practice of the rest of northern Europe, and without sustained investment and political leadership from the top, we will never catch up.
	I am delighted that the Labour party has today launched its Labour for Cycling campaign. I hope that those on my Front Bench will sign up fully to implement the recommendations in our report, but we need the Government to act as well. Without that, we will not see the growth in cycling of recent years sustained; nor will we see a reversal of the worrying recent trend of increased cyclist deaths and injuries on our roads.
	I am pleased with some of the things that the Government have announced and done. The recent commitment to supporting cycling in a number of selected towns and cities is welcome, but it is basically a smaller-scale version of Labour’s cycle demonstration towns programme, and instead of happening in a few places, it should be happening everywhere. It would take only a fraction of the annual roads budget to achieve that. I would also like to know why the scheme was available only in
	places that were already part of the Government’s separate city deal programme. That ruled out cities such as Exeter from applying, which means that now, under this Government, only a quarter of the amount of money is being invested in cycling in Exeter than was the case when Labour was in power.
	I deeply regret the abolition of Cycling England, and I believe that the Government do, too. It was the body that drew all the disparate cycling organisations together and it was a vital co-ordinating voice and deliverer of policy. I also think that the Government were fatally mistaken to go soft on road safety, in abandoning Labour’s road death reduction targets and declaring their ridiculous war on speed cameras.
	I am encouraged that the noises coming out of the Government more recently on road safety have been more sensible, but I am still concerned that they are not speaking with one voice. If they are serious about cycling, why are they allowing the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make the ludicrous suggestion that vehicles should enjoy a free-for-all by parking on double yellow lines, without even mentioning the impact that that would have on cyclists, pedestrians and road safety? The Secretary of State went on to say that the only people who were bothered about cycling were the “elite”. I do not know whether his animus towards cycling is a result of some deep Freudian consciousness that he is probably the Cabinet member who would benefit the most from cycling’s health-giving and girth-narrowing magic, but his comments are signally unhelpful and they should not go unchallenged if the Government are really serious about cycling.

Steve Brine: Does that not underline the point that we made in our report about the need for a national cycling champion with real—dare I say it—weight behind him, to force the right way of thinking through every level of Government?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, and the hon. Gentleman might even be that person in the future. He is absolutely right. During the hearings, I told the inquiry that when I was a Minister, the only time we really got pedalling on this issue, to excuse the pun, was when the Secretaries of State in the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office and the Department for Transport—all the important Departments —were committed to it and were working together to make things happen. Otherwise, nothing would happen.
	That leads me to my final point. Time and again, when our Committee was taking evidence on cycling, our witnesses came back to the importance of long-term, sustained investment and joined-up political leadership. We need more than a Prime Minister who cycles to work for a photo opportunity while his limo drives behind him with his papers. We need a Prime Minister, and the whole Government from him down, who will make it clear that cycling is a priority across Government. It is cheap, and it will save lives, improve health and boost productivity. It will also reduce congestion, air pollution and carbon emissions. This is a no-brainer, and the infinitesimal cost of doing it would be more than recouped in the form of a happier, healthier, safer, greener, cleaner, thinner and more productive nation in a very short time indeed.

John Stevenson: First, I should like to congratulate the all-party parliamentary cycling group on its report. I have to acknowledge a slight sense of guilt, as I should be a fully paid-up member of the group. I shall try to rectify that afterwards. I fully support its broad aims and the ambitions of the recommendations set out in the report. It is good to see cycling being debated and very much on the agenda.
	Cycling has many virtues. It has health benefits, it is sustainable and environmentally friendly, it has many economic benefits and it is a wonderful social activity. Quite simply, it is an effective means of transport. It is encouraging to see the Government taking a greater interest in cycling, getting involved in the debate and putting some funding into cycling.

Rob Wilson: I support what my hon. Friend is saying. The Government have put funds into a cycling bridge over the River Thames in my constituency, but the big problem is that the local authority does not join up the cycle networks. It thinks that simply putting white paint on the roads is enough to create safe cycleways, but that is not good enough.

John Stevenson: Indeed. We should remember that this is not just about funding coming from the centre; we should not always be looking to central Government to take the lead. Local government also has a critical role to play, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out. Its activities can encourage or discourage cyclists, and the resources that it is willing to provide are important. Local authorities can provide innovation and leadership in their own communities to improve the opportunities for cycling.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend support the massive transformation that has happened in my North West Leicestershire constituency, where redundant coal mines have been transformed into part of the new national forest and are criss-crossed by numerous well-used and attractive cycle paths, particularly the Hicks Lodge national forest cycle centre, which allows thousands of families to have traffic-free cycling each year?

John Stevenson: It is good to know that these things are happening, and it demonstrates the role for both national and local government in improving cycling.
	I would describe myself as an irregular but enthusiastic cyclist with a tendency to go for the long cycles rather than the daily commute. Prior to the general election of 2010, I made a pledge to my local constituents that if I were elected, I would cycle from my constituency to London. After being elected, the very first question I received from a reporter was, “And when do you intend to cycle to London?” I finally carried out that cycle, and this year I took an even longer cycling trip from Land’s End to John O’ Groats. On both those trips, the experience was very good. I got a bit fitter, lost a little weight and found it to be a great social activity, doing it with friends. It is a great way to see the diversity of our own country and, indeed, to raise a little money for charity along the way.
	I want to make two serious observations coming out of those two cycle trips. First, there were potholes everywhere, and it would be helpful if local governments
	could do their best to try to rectify that, which makes it so difficult for cyclists. Secondly, I have mixed views on fellow drivers when cycling along the roads. I shall come on to that later.
	I appreciate that many Members will speak about the report, its views and its recommendations, but I want to make two specific observations and suggestions, both of which will, I suspect, be highly controversial. First, cyclists must take responsibility for their own safety. We must ride our bikes sensibly and appropriately. It is vital for cyclists to respect other road users, especially cars and lorries, as well as pedestrians and other cyclists. I also believe that we cyclists should wear a helmet.
	On that last point, I would go further. Some have campaigned to make it compulsory for children to wear helmets. I believe that that should be extended to everyone: everyone who uses a bike should use a helmet. If adults are seen to wear helmets, that will encourage children to do so, but I see no reason why that should not be made compulsory in the interests of safety. I appreciate that there are counter-arguments and that some take the view that it would reduce the number of people taking up cycling. I am of the view that safety is important and that, gradually, the opposition to wearing helmets would be overcome as people get used to the idea. We have all got used to wearing safety belts in cars and helmets on motorbikes.

Michael Ellis: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to encourage training for children in schools to encourage cycle riding and explain how best to be safe on the roads? Even if the children were not to go on to cycle or drive cars themselves, it would still teach about the risks of poor or dangerous cycling while cars are on the road. Would my hon. Friend encourage such teaching in schools?

John Stevenson: Absolutely; I completely concur.
	My second point, which I think will be seen as equally controversial, is that I am not convinced by the arguments about speed limits, enforcement or the education of drivers. Yes, it may be a laudable aim, but I question whether enough drivers would pay attention to those speed limits in practice, which would be necessary to make cycling a much safer occupation or leisure activity. I fully accept that many drivers are responsible and take care when cyclists are around. They drive appropriately and safely, keeping their distance, slowing down, giving cyclists a wide berth and so forth. On my cycling trips, I noted many car drivers who did precisely that, taking their time and being patient with cyclists. Equally, however, a large number of drivers think cyclists are a nuisance on the road, so they drive too close or too fast and endanger cyclists. From my experience, that is far more common than we would like to think.
	I therefore believe that there should be a simple change in the law. In the event of an accident, there should be a presumption in favour of the cyclist over the driver. Clearly, any driver of a car has the right to rebut such a claim and we have to accept that there are irresponsible cyclists who take inappropriate care and attention when they cycle. However, I believe that such a change in the law would mean that car drivers, lorry drivers and other motorists would take far greater care and would make every effort to keep their distance from
	a cyclist. All of a sudden, cyclists would become road users of whom motorists would have to be very careful and wary, as their insurance claims could be affected and there would be the potential for criminality. Such a presumption is, in fact, accepted in some European countries, and I see no reason why it could not be introduced in this country.
	If we want to reduce the number of accidents, we need to alter the approach that many drivers have to cyclists. We have to get to the stage where cycling is seen as safe, and I believe that the only way to do that is to make car drivers far more aware of the dangers of hitting, affecting or coming into contact with cyclists. If we want to make cycling safe and therefore encourage others to start cycling, we have to change the relationship between the driver and the cyclist. With those two simple changes to the law, we could effectively do that; cyclists would be encouraged to cycle safely by wearing a helmet, and they would be given confidence in the fact that drivers would be taking far more care when they pass them on the road.
	I congratulate the all-party group once more on its report. It will be interesting to see whether it will take up the two ideas that I have set out.

Simon Danczuk: I am pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). I thank the all-party parliamentary cycling group for this excellent report and for securing this debate.
	I am speaking in this debate not just because many of my constituents have urged me to take part, but because I believe I bring a particular perspective to it as a recent convert to cycling. Hon. Friends have advised me that the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) might have had to inform me in advance that she was going to describe me in the Chamber—as middle-aged, overweight and desperately attempting to get back in shape. That is, indeed, one of the reasons why I took up cycling.
	As the report says,
	“Britain needs to re-learn how to cycle.”
	That is exactly what I have been doing, by cycling on holiday in Holland. I have holidayed with my family in Holland for the last five years, and learned much more about cycling for leisure purposes. That has encouraged me, but before I started cycling again, I must admit that I shared the disregard for cyclists that many people have. It was a wholly inappropriate view, but I admit to having had it. The report makes it clear that we need to change our attitudes towards cyclists, and I am one of those who was guilty of needing to do so before I started cycling again.
	I will not rehearse all the arguments about why it is beneficial to cycle in Holland or issues relating to segregation, prioritising cyclists and all the rest of it. Another important point—my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) referred to this—is that many more cyclists in Holland are also drivers, and many more drivers are also cyclists. Much greater priority is therefore given to cyclists.

Henry Bellingham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Holland. Indeed, I have holidayed there many times, too. Local councils there are very much aware of the need to ensure that new schemes are cycle-friendly. Is he aware that in some areas, including mine, there are problems where community infrastructure funding schemes? These can result in very safe school cycling routes being converted into a dedicated bus route, with no alternative cycle route being put in place. Does he agree that when these community infrastructure funding schemes are put in place, alternative like-for-like cycle-friendly arrangements should be made?

Simon Danczuk: That is an excellent point, and it leads on to my next one. I have been cycling in the United Kingdom, primarily in Rochdale, for just six months now, and I have encountered many good examples of provision for cycling. The Rochdale canal, for example, has a great cycling path, but even that can be seen to be falling into disrepair. The work was done some years ago and needs re-doing. Kingsway business park, a new development, caters very well for cyclists, but not all new schemes have cycling provision designed into them. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need for that to happen.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for action of the sort that has already made a real difference in my community. Our Waltham Forest cycling campaign, and work done by the local authority under the leadership of Councillor Clyde Loakes, have given cyclists an insight into what makes for a good system, and as a result they have been able to give feedback to the council. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should learn at a national level from such partnerships between local community cycling groups and councils?

Simon Danczuk: My hon. Friend is right, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that we need to discuss with local authorities, in consultation with cyclists and other road users, how better road layouts and better systems for cyclists can be designed in our towns and cities. That is crucial, because there is still a long way to go, certainly in places such as Rochdale.
	Unlike the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), I hold local councillors in high esteem, and I have good things to say about them. There has been much talk in the report and in the Chamber about the need for political leadership on cycling, and that is exactly right. Let me now put on record something that I have never put on record before: a Liberal Democrat councillor in Rochdale has done an excellent job in championing cycling. [Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”] I will not withdraw that remark. Councillor Wera Hobhouse really pushed the boundaries in persuading the local authority to do more for cycling in Rochdale, and that does credit to her. She is still a councillor, but is no longer in a position of power. We need such local champions, as well as national champions. We need political leadership to ensure that cycling is given a fair shout at a local level.
	I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group, and strongly support the campaign that it has initiated.

Mark Pawsey: One of the objectives of today’s debate is to increase the proportion of journeys that are made by bike, and to persuade people to use their bikes more regularly. That makes me part of the target market. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), I am not a regular cyclist. I would describe myself as a fair-weather cyclist who cycles infrequently on country lanes for the purpose of exercise or enjoyment.

Bob Stewart: Let me make this announcement immediately: I am going to dust off my old bike and get cycling. That will help me to live for two more years.

Mark Pawsey: The debate has already achieved part of its objective, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a new cyclist on our Benches. However, if we are fully to realise the objectives set out in the motion, people like me must be encouraged to ride their bikes more.
	The inspiration that led me to use my bicycle more came during the recess. A couple of weeks ago, on a Thursday, I read an article in The Times by Dame Kelly Holmes, encouraging Members of Parliament to ride our bikes before participating in the debate. I had intended to drive the six miles or so from my home to the constituency office, but that day I decided to cycle. I should add that the weather was very good during August, and that the sunshine made my decision a great deal easier.
	I have a number of observations to make following that experience. Travelling down Dunchurch road in Rugby in a cycle lane, I noticed that other cyclists were still on the road. I asked myself why those guys were still on the road when I was going down the cycle lane, which is half on the footpath. Then I realised that there were “Give way” lines on the side roads, and that I was having to give way to the cars that were coming out of them. Had I been on the road, I would not have had that problem. The other cyclists were making much faster progress than I was. Perhaps the Minister will explain why cars coming out of a side road have priority over the cyclists on a cycle way.

Kate Green: Could local authorities perhaps be given more discretion to depart from national guidance and come up with imaginative solutions that will work in their own areas?

Mark Pawsey: I should certainly like cyclists to be given more encouragement to use cycle ways when they are provided.
	I encountered another problem on that occasion. I had some constituency duties to fulfil. It was a warm day, and it occurred to me that I ought to carry an extra shirt, so I put one in a rucksack which I carried on my back. I still arrived soaked in sweat, not looking much like a Member of Parliament. I tweeted about the experience and received some useful advice on Twitter, namely that I should put some panniers on my bike so that I need not stick a rucksack on my back which would make my back wet. I now know that if I am to use my bike regularly, I shall need to invest in some panniers.
	I also found that, in many instances, the cycle way was in pretty poor condition, with very unclear markings. It had probably been constructed three or four years earlier. Local authorities need to invest in ensuring that the markings on cycle ways are clear. On more than one occasion, overgrown trees rendered the cycle way useless and forced me out on to the road.
	One or two Members have mentioned vehicles parked in cycle ways. Again on more than one occasion, I was forced on to the road by an illegally parked car or van. I agree with what has been said about the need for flexibility on the part of car users who are currently causing difficulties for cyclists.
	I took my life in my hands on a slip road on a dual carriageway. There was fast traffic to my right, and as I progressed along to the slip road, to my left, coming up on the inside. Fortunately it was a quiet day, but I should hate to be on that road in different circumstances. Provision should be made for cyclists on slip roads off dual carriageways. I also felt very uncomfortable on roundabouts, which I know have caused concern to the all-party group. I hope that the debate will result in better designed road schemes that make allowances for cyclists.

Nicola Blackwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Pawsey: I have already given way twice, so I shall continue, if I may.
	There has been some discussion today about the use of helmets. I made my decision about whether to wear one when I hired a bike in the Lake district. When I told the young gentleman who served me that I should be more than happy not to bother with a helmet, he said “Sir, how many brains have you got?” I know that there is a Member who goes by the nickname “Two Brains”, but it is not me, and I found the sales assistant’s case very persuasive.
	If we are to make progress towards achieving the aims of this debate, the targets should be not people making my journey of six miles or so, but people making journeys of up to three miles in towns such as the one that I represent. It is far too easy, indeed instinctive, for people who need to travel from a suburb such as Hillmorton or Bilton to the centre of Rugby—a journey of no more than a couple of yards—to get into their cars. Those are the people whom the cycling campaign needs to target. We have already heard about the health and cost benefits that accrue to those who decide to cycle, and the benefits to the environment if more people do so more generally.
	Planning has also been mentioned. Rugby borough council has launched a green travel plan. During the recess, I visited a business that had been forced by the plan to include a cycle shed in the development that it had built recently, but regrettably there was not a single bike in it. It is clear that the policies need to be “joined up”.
	There are, however, some fantastic cycle ways in my constituency. Last Thursday, the mayor officially reopened a 173-year-old railway viaduct that had previously been derelict. It had been 60 years since trains last travelled on the route. It was opened by Sustrans, using a grant from the Big Lottery Fund, as a new cycle way linking
	northern parts of the town to the railway station and town centre. That is a fantastic initiative that supports Rugby’s regeneration strategy, and I am sure that the route will be used by many more cyclists.
	We have heard about cyclists sharing their road space with other users, and in particular about the problems created by heavy goods vehicles. One Member asked whether something could be done about them. Their impact on cyclists is taken seriously by the logistics industry and the country. I draw the attention of hon. Members to Cemex, a company in my constituency that ships cement around the country. At last year’s Conservative party conference—I hope it was at other conferences, too—Cemex parked one of its vehicles and allowed people to get into the cab so that they could see exactly the blind spot that lorry drivers suffer from when driving. I hope that more and more logistics companies will do precisely that; another one did it at a fête I attended.
	I thank the all-party group for bringing about this debate and I look forward to progress on cycling in the years to come.

David Lammy: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on all their work in the all-party group. I also congratulate my constituent Adam Coffman on all he has done to raise the issue of cycling in our national life. In these debates it is easy to get a sense that people are paying lip service to cycling, but the profound and cultural change we need in this country has not yet happened and now has to arrive. It is important that we recognise that the debate about cycling, certainly here in London, is being had against the backdrop of people having to wrestle with issues of not only quality of life, but the cost of living—petrol prices, transport costs, and rises in bus and tube fares. Transport costs beyond London mean that people want cycling to be a serious option.
	For many of the reasons hon. Members have raised, and for some that I will touch on, cycling does not feel like a realistic option. I think that hon. Members want the Government to get behind the vision behind this report to make it one. We need long-term commitments and aims, not simply the short-term and headline-grabbing initiatives we have had in the past. The target of a 10% modal share for cycling by 2025 is good, but that will not happen by itself. Shockingly, just 6% of people in Britain cycle for more than 30 minutes once a week and only 2% use a bike to get to work.
	Hon. Members will recall that, sadly, the Labour party lost the election in 2010. It has been said about Ministers, “You know you’re no longer a Minister when you get into the back of a car and it does not start.” I found myself in that situation, but at that point, when I was 30-whatever, I was not a driver. When I hit 40, I decided that I would learn to drive and I could be found driving up Barnet high road trying to do so. On my third attempt, I recently got my driving licence—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.] But I hate driving, and I have not really been back in a car since.
	What I like doing is cycling. I, too, took my family to Holland this summer on a cycling holiday. I took a five-year-old and a seven-year-old, and we did about
	80 km in 10 days. I do not think I could do that in this country. I certainly do not think I could do it easily in London, because I simply would not feel secure enough about the safety of a five-year-old and a seven-year-old on their bikes on the cycleways. Parents up and down the country want this report to be taken seriously, because they want to see their children cycling.
	Nobody has touched on this next point, but I am concerned that the cycling proficiency training, which many hon. Members will recall from when they were younger, seems to be patchy across the country; it varies from school to school, and from local authority to local authority. We have raised this debate about helmets, but we also have to invest in proper cycling proficiency training if we want cycling to increase among young people.

Geoffrey Cox: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that one superb way of commencing on the cycling pathway is to have an electric bicycle? I have one and they are a wonderful way of commencing cycling and getting people interested in it. They have not received much attention in this debate until now, but I urge him to plug the advantages and merits of electric bikes.

David Lammy: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very good point. I knew nothing about electric bikes until I saw some in Holland just a few days ago. I thought that perhaps I should get one, but as I want to get rid of this girth I decided against it.

Nicola Blackwood: I wish to take the right hon. Gentleman back to his point about cycling proficiency. Would another point of transition for introducing cycling proficiency be when young people go to university, when they often get back on bikes having not been on them since they were young children? That can lead to dangerous situations and, often, to road deaths.

David Lammy: The hon. Lady makes a good point. Those people are getting on bikes for cost-saving reasons, but they are doing so in towns and cities, where the prioritisation we need on cycling is not there. The resulting deaths and serious injuries should be of great concern.
	Nearly half of all car journeys made in London are fewer than 2 miles long. That is an easily bikeable distance, so we have to ask why so many people are not choosing to bike. As the hon. Lady indicated, in London alone more than 500 cyclists were seriously injured in just one year, which is a rise of 22% on the previous year’s figure. It is right that the current Mayor has done much to encourage cycling in London, and he should be congratulated on getting behind cycling. His appointment of a cycling tsar has also been very important, but targets for reducing cycle casualties have been consistently missed. The number of cycling casualties in London has increased every year since 2008, which is only partly explained by the cycling participation rates. Nationally, 122 cyclists were killed on British roads last year. So road accidents are still proportionately involving cycling, despite the incidence of other road accidents falling. That issue has to be addressed and it can be done only if we challenge the culture of cycling and do not have a
	transport policy that sometimes feels like just a motorists’ policy. We need a policy that is prepared to put both pedestrians and cyclists alongside motorists.
	Remarks have been made about the share of investment in cycling. Those remarks need to be taken seriously if we are to get the shift that the Minister has said he wants and that I suspect he will say he wants, as it feels a long way off for those of us who want cycling to get up to where it needs to be. Investment and participation campaigns are crucial, but they will go only so far. Ministers must treat British roads as existing not just for cars, but for cyclists. Much greater priority also needs to be put on safety, which means proper investment in cycling paths, borough to borough, road to road, and new radical solutions that promote cycling.
	I welcome this debate, although it is only really the very beginning on this subject. I hope that the House will return to it, but I hope that we will see the step change that we need in this country over the coming months.

Stephen Lloyd: It is a pleasure to speak after the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I applaud this debate and this outstanding report by the all-party group, and I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). A number of colleagues who have been here much longer than I have mentioned how well attended this debate is. Since then, about 15 or 20 hon. Members have left the Chamber and will be back later. Despite that, seeing the number of people still in the Chamber, I would guess that it is probably double the number of Members who would have attended only five years ago and probably triple the number who would have attended 10 years ago. That shows the enormous strides that have been made in the cycling debate over the past few years. I support that agenda for a number of key reasons.
	The first is the business case. In Eastbourne, we have a strong cycling group called Bespoke, which is tremendously enthused and involved in driving the cycling agenda in the town. I support that. Eastbourne is a wonderful seaside town that has bucked the economic trend over the past few years, with unemployment going down, apprenticeships going up and regeneration in the town centre through £70 million of private spend. I am keen to drive that agenda using cycling, because, like many other parts of the UK and along its coastline, Eastbourne is a lovely place for a cycling holiday. The right hon. Member for Tottenham mentioned going to Holland with his family and I went there myself only a few months ago. He is right that the level of cycling and the safety there are astounding, because, obviously, it has been part of the culture for 40 years. We are catching up, but I am convinced that as we drive the cycling agenda in towns such as Eastbourne—getting more families and tourists in as we improve the cycle paths—it will make a substantial difference to their economic turnover.
	Nationally, we have gross cycling product of about £2.9 billion and 3.7 million bikes are sold in the UK, a 28% increase on last year. Some 23,000 people are employed directly in cycling in the UK. Cycling offers a major and substantial benefit to UK plc, but that is just
	the tip of the iceberg. The number of people in the House today and the report demonstrate that the UK is going in the right direction on the cycling agenda in a range of areas, including health, business and carbon emissions. We have a way to go but the starting gun has fired.
	I had not ridden a bike for 40 years until about four weeks ago, when Bespoke persuaded me to get on a bicycle for what I was told was a short ride—but it lasted two and a half hours. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said that cycling takes 10 years off a person, and as I had not ridden a bike for 40 years, riding it for two and a half hours certainly took 10 years off my life. I could barely stand afterwards. The good news for hon. Members who, like me, have not cycled for a long time is that it really is like riding a bike. I got on and after a few wobbles I was away.
	What are the challenges? We know what they are. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) made a strong and valid point about the fact that the previous Government invested a lot of time and money in cycling and they deserve a lot of the credit for pushing the agenda. The difference is that my Government inherited an economic crisis that means that challenging decisions must be taken, but I encourage the coalition to focus on this report, which contains a lot of good recommendations that would not cost a lot of money. I am confident that proper investment in the recommendations put together by the all-party group would offer a substantial economic benefit and help to transform the lives of many people in the UK who, like me, should not wait 40 years to get back on a bike.
	There are challenges. That takes us back to the question of Holland versus the UK. Holland has a different infrastructure. The UK is an old country that has not been designed for cycles so I appreciate the challenges faced by any Government. I know that the Minister responsible for this issue, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—he is a neighbour of mine—has been passionate about cycling and bikes for as long as I have known him, which is 11 years. There is no stronger champion of cycling in the Government. When he winds up, I look forward to hearing what further initiatives the Government will introduce to keep things moving in the right direction and to build on the momentum that has been established over the past 15 years so that cycling really takes off. There are more people in the Chamber than I have ever seen at a Backbench business debate and that demonstrates not just the strength of feeling in the country but that the time has come for political leadership. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

Chi Onwurah: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and I welcome both it and the all-party group’s report. It is good to see cross-party agreement on such a positive issue, and I hope that when the Minister responds he will give us the assurances we are all looking for.
	So far, Ministers and the Department have been full of warm words of support and like to give the impression that this country is freewheeling towards becoming a cycling nation on a par with, say, Holland. I am afraid
	that we are not even ambling in that direction; we need sustained action and leadership from Ministers if we want to achieve that in a reasonable time frame.
	Many hon. Members have spoken of the benefits of cycling to individuals, to children, to society, to cities and to the environment. At the end of July, Newcastle Gateshead hosted its first sky ride. It was an amazing success, with 7,800 people attending, and shows just how many people in Newcastle and Gateshead want to get on their bikes if they can feel safe doing so. The north-east has some of the lowest cycling levels in the UK, with just 8% of people cycling once a week. We also—this fact is perhaps related—have higher than average levels of obesity and lower levels of physical activity in adults. I pay tribute to the work Newcastle city council is doing and to its commitment to supporting cycling.
	In Newcastle, we are lucky to have strong cross-party political leadership on cycling. We have an enthusiastic cycling champion, Councillor Marion Talbot, who chairs our cycling forum, which brings together the many different voices for cycling in our city. There is, however, a lack of such strong political leadership at a national level. The abolition of Cycling England, set up under the previous Labour Government, means that there is now also no dedicated pot of money and, equally, no focal point for cycling. We have ad hoc announcements and re-announcements, and then repackaged re-announcements. When separate pots of money are released seemingly at random for cycling and infrastructure, it makes it difficult for local authorities like Newcastle to plan cycling development. The abolition of Cycling England means that there is no obvious means for councils to share ideas and the great best practice we have heard about today other than through the mysterious cycle stakeholder forum, which is yet to be mentioned but which has apparently met three times in the three years it has existed—for what purpose, nobody seems to know.

Graham Evans: rose—

Chi Onwurah: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten us.

Graham Evans: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She talks about the abolition of Cycling England, but surely the Local Government Association is one of the best mechanisms for sharing best practice on cycling.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, but the Local Government Association has many issues on which to share best practice. I agree that it provides an excellent forum for that, but the strength of Cycling England was that it did exactly what its name said—it was about cycling in England. Having lost that organisation, we need something to fulfil that role.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that we do not see the initiatives and half-policies like those she is talking about in the Government’s transport policy on trains, buses, cars and roads? That is why we need a proper integrated strategy.

Chi Onwurah: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Comparisons are odious, but sometimes they are essential. Everyone in the Chamber would agree that there is neither the focus on nor the strategy for cycling that exist for other areas of transport. I hope that the Minister will set out how he intends to address the clear lack of leadership.
	The report notes that successfully increasing cycling in many towns requires not just leadership and political will but investment. The report notes the relative underfunding per head for British cycling, which many hon. Members have spoken about today, but the Department for Transport’s response to the report was disappointing, as it did not deal with long-term funding. On most other issues, the buck was passed to local authorities and there was no commitment to appoint a national cycling champion. That is not the leadership that we need. I welcome the fact that Newcastle was awarded £5.7 million from the cycle city ambition fund, which was on top of £1.3 million from the cycle safety fund, but those amounts are relatively small compared with those received by European cities.
	As several hon. Members have said, it is not just the amount of funding that is important. Whatever the spending per head, Government investment must be continued, steady and sustained if councils such as Newcastle are to plan to achieve their goals and all the associated benefits we have heard about. While much of the legwork in getting Britain cycling does and should fall to councils, there is plenty that the Government can do to support them. Newcastle is working hard to make the city’s road cycle-friendly and installing better cycling infrastructure. It is one of the leading local authorities on 20 mph zones, with the majority of residential areas and much of the city centre now covered by that limit.
	The Department’s response to the report rightly says that things such as planning cycling routes and speed limits are local matters, but what about putting in place national standards for cycle infrastructure design or educating more people with design skills? What about reviewing sentencing guidelines for careless and reckless drivers?
	Investment is important, although having a long-term pot is almost as important as the amount that goes into it. Above all, however, Transport Ministers and their colleagues across Whitehall must step up and show national leadership if we are to meet the goals set out in the report.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Some 19 speakers still wish to participate in the debate, so I shall reduce the time limit to five minutes in the hope that we will be able to get everyone in. By all means make interventions, as they help the debate, but if a Member has already made a speech, perhaps they will bear in mind the fact that others are waiting to do so.

Graham Evans: I am delighted to speak in this important debate. As a fairly recent convert to cycling, I have personal experience of its many benefits, although I am also conscious of its dangers, especially for those who, like me, are new to the sport.
	The Evans household has become an enthusiastic cycling family with new bikes for the children and not-so-new bikes for mum and dad. I was interested to hear the debate about helmets because I insist that we all wear helmets although, for some reason, when I put my helmet on, the children point and laugh—I have no idea why.
	There is a fantastic grass-roots movement in my constituency to encourage residents to get on their bikes. I give credit to the Northwich Guardian’sPedal Power campaign for drawing my constituents’ attention to the importance of cycling. Its cycling ambassadors, with profiles ranging from teenage pro bikers to blind nonagenarians, show my constituents that a bike is for everyone at any stage of their lives. I welcome the all-party cycling group’s “Get Britain Cycling” report and its target of one in 10 journeys being by bike by 2025. Road safety is also important to me, and I shall be presenting the Drug Driving (Assessment of Drug Misuse) Bill—my private Member’s Bill—to the House for its Second Reading on 18 October.
	The benefits of cycling are clear, with better health being the obvious starting point, as a regular cyclist in mid-adulthood has the fitness levels of someone 10 years younger. We have heard many comments suggesting that we all want to be 10 years younger.
	When we consider Britain’s transport system, it is clear that there must be a better way. Most of us find ourselves sitting in long traffic jams when we make the quick run down the road to the shops to pick up some milk and a loaf of bread. Some 66% of all trips made in Britain are less than five miles. However, if one factors in the process of getting to the destination and then hunting down a parking space, that seems daft, given that one could reasonably often nip down to the shops on a bike. There are also economic arguments in favour of cycling because regular cyclists are associated with lower health costs, while the cost of congestion goes down and productivity increases.
	What is stopping people cycling? The main reason is safety. The Department’s “British Social Attitudes Survey 2012: public attitudes towards transport” showed that 48% of cyclists, who were defined as someone who had cycled in the past year, agreed that it was too dangerous for them to cycle on the roads, whereas the figure for non-cyclists was 65%. It is also worth noting that there is a significant gender divide regarding cycling safety because 60% of women said that it was too dangerous compared with 53% of men. I am therefore proud to be involved in Northwich Breeze rides, which are designed specifically to introduce more women in the area to cycling and to improve their confidence in safety.
	What can be done to improve safety? There are basic steps that everyone should take when getting on a bike. Putting on a helmet and ensuring that reflectors and proper lights are fitted are all ways of making someone safer and more visible. It is only logical that local authorities should take simple and automatic steps to improve—

Kris Hopkins: Next year’s Tour de France will come to my constituency on two consecutive days. It will go through villages such as Addingham and Stanbury, and green parts of my wonderful constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a great opportunity
	to support the points that he is making, as well as to make wider points about health and fitness and to promote businesses in the community?

Graham Evans: I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for that wonderful intervention. I hope that those people on the Tour have their passports ready to go into Yorkshire and, importantly, to come out of it.
	I welcome the Government’s cycle safety fund to redesign junctions. However, while they are encouraging sensible planning, there is no single, consistent and enforceable design standard for bicycles regarding new development. As an aspect of planning, surely that should be as obvious as putting on a helmet before getting on a bike. As is the case for many hon. Members, house builders are building thousands of new homes in my constituency, but their designs suggest that little thought has been given to making roads accessible via a bike. Given that the county of Cheshire is relatively flat, perhaps its councils could be a beacon to show all authorities how cycling can be a pleasure for all.
	We should examine speeds in residential areas for the benefit of not only cyclists, but pedestrians. The Department for Transport has made it easier for councils to impose 20 mph areas, which is a great step forward for locally focused safety, but now is the time to consider whether there should be a default limit of 20 mph for residential areas, with councils given the discretion to change that. Such a measure could reduce the number of road incidents.
	Heavy goods vehicles pose a major risk to cyclists. Nearly half of all cycle fatalities in the capital are due to HGVs, although those vehicles make up only 5% of the overall traffic. Better awareness of cyclists, restrictions during peak traffic times and more international co-operation on HGV design would clearly be important steps, so I welcome the Department’s ongoing work in that area.
	The Government have made significant investment in cycling, with £148 million invested by 2015, but it has been clear from listening to hon. Members’ speeches that cohesive thinking and cross-departmental work will encourage cycling even more. I welcome the excellent work of the all-party cycling group and I hope that the debate demonstrates how, with a proactive attitude, we can ensure that cycling becomes an important part of British life.

Hugh Bayley: The House has a fairly rigid dress code, and I think I inadvertently broke it earlier today because, for the first time in my career, I wore a pair of cycle clips in the Chamber. That was not because I was trying to celebrate the debate, but because I had rushed here from one of my two bicycle visits today so that I would be in time to ask my question during Defence questions—[Interruption.] I got no answer, but that is the nature of parliamentary questions. I make the point because I have been cycling to Parliament and to meetings near Parliament for more than 20 years. As other Members have observed, in that period there has been a huge growth in the number of people who cycle—not just the number of people working in the Palace of Westminster but the number of people in general on the roads of London. That increase has not just happened—it occurred as a result of public policy
	and public spending. That is the first thing that I would say to the Minister: we need an increase in Government spending to promote cycling and make the roads safer for cycling, but it needs to be long-term and predictable funding, which is why I particularly welcome the proposal that there should be spending by his Department on cycling measures at the rate of £10 per capita.
	There are environmental and health benefits from cycling. It is a convenient and time-saving way to travel short distances. No one has mentioned the fact that it is a cheap way of travelling. For MPs, there is one more advantage. I sometimes use a car in my constituency, and when I do, no one notices me driving round. However, when I am cycling round my constituency people notice me all the time. They point, they probably laugh, but at least they see that I am in my constituency—that is a tip for Members on both sides of the House.
	Between 2008 and 2010, York received £3.68 million as one of the 12 cycling cities designated by Cycling England. It had a number of goals, including increasing the use of cycling by 25% from 10%—a relatively high level—at the beginning of the period to 12.5%. In fact, it increased the use of cycling by twice the target—by 50%—to 15%. Interestingly, in York, as many women cycle as men, and that is a goal that we ought to try to roll out nationally.
	Under the scheme, we pledged to increase commuter cycling by 10% from 12% at the beginning of the period to 13.2%. Although there was no national survey of the number of people who commute to work by cycle, looking at the big employers in York, the increase in that period ranged from 17% to 35%. Achieving an increase depends on whether employers provide incentives such as safe cycle parking, cycle workshops where people can repair punctures for instance, and cycle loan schemes. The House could do a lot more for the people who work here, and I hope that that is something the all-party group will press for.
	I welcome the proposal in the report for a goal of increasing cycle use to 10% by 2025, but we need different goals for different local authorities. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who introduced the debate, has in his city a cycling participation level far above 10%, and so does my own city. We will not achieve 10% national usage unless we set challenging goals for those local authorities that are in the lead.
	Finally, greater efforts should be made to employ trained personnel in local authorities to supervise the safety of transport schemes, and for institutes such as the—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Guy Opperman: Who knew, ladies and gentlemen, that this debate was sponsored by the Dutch tourism board? Many of us seem to have taken a Dutch cycling holiday. I am here to stand up for cycling in Northumberland, which features everything from Hadrian’s cycleway and the coast-to-coast tour to the delights of Kielder and the castles cycle route.
	I congratulate wholeheartedly the cross-party group, which has done a fantastic job—this is probably one of the finest Back-Bench debates that we have ever had.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and other members of the all-party parliamentary group have done a brilliant job and produced a fantastic report. I need to declare the fact that I cycle to work in London. I can cycle from Fulham, where I live, to King’s Cross, pretty much all on a cycleway. It is much quicker than going by car. In Northumberland, I live near Stamfordham, where we see more bicycles than cars travelling around and about. There is no question but that the Northumberland economy depends to a large degree on cycling tourism and the economic benefit that it brings. I therefore support the motion wholeheartedly, but while cities such as Newcastle have benefited from over £5 million, the benefit to some rural areas, whether Northumberland or other counties, is significantly less. We need equality of funding across all parts of the country so that we may all benefit, rather than simply the towns that have been allocated money thus far.

Duncan Hames: Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the report to get Britain cycling. He is right about rural areas. Does he agree that we need innovative solutions to help to provide opportunities to make it easier to cycle in rural areas, such as the two tunnels greenway in Bath, from which many of my constituents benefit, and the canal towpaths that run through my constituency? Otherwise, hedge-lined country roads between towns can be quite intimidating.

Guy Opperman: I endorse that entirely. Indeed, when I asked my constituents for their comments, one of them, Ted Liddle, wrote on behalf of the mountain biking club:
	“Other than a few parking stands, in Tynedale there has been no cycling investment”
	in the past 10 to 12 years.
	There are exceptions, but if we do not have innovative ways forward and local cycling champions we will struggle. I endorse earlier comments about the fact that we need individual Borises or cycling champions in some shape or form who champion cycling in their counties and regions. It is easy, given that Yorkshire has the benefit of the Tour de France next year, to make the case. Everyone in the north welcomes that.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend has discussed the need for cycle routes in rural areas. We do not have the luxury of going along the embankment to create the Boris highway. We have to make sure that we have cycle routes such as old railway lines and so on that can be used successfully. We are working on precisely that on the Seaton to Colyford route. However, I very much welcome the debate so that we can have cycling in rural areas.

Guy Opperman: Indeed. Not only that, but this debate is making converts. Our hon. Friend, the eminent colonel from Beckenham, has assured the House that he will get back on his bike, which I am confident is not a penny farthing.

Bob Stewart: To the best of my memory, it has pneumatic tyres and a chain.

Guy Opperman: The mind boggles: to know is to fear.
	Those of us who are students of the film industry will hark back to the comment, “If you build it, they will come.” That is the case in relation to cycling. It is easy for too many civil servants, Ministers of all types, local authorities, county and parish councils to think that investment in cycling is not worth the money, the effort, the criticism by drivers and pedestrians and the sheer difficulty of persuading people to get out of their beloved vehicles. However, if we build the type of facilities that we all require in our local areas, cycling improves. We need only look at the success of places such as Seville, as eloquently set out in the report, where between 2007 and 2010, cycling went up from 6,000 journeys to 60,000 journeys. We need only look at the changes in New York or Holland, sponsored as we are by the Dutch tourism board, where 27% of journeys are by bike, compared with 2% in this country. That is patently the result of investment, support and local champions.
	I suggest we look at the health benefits. Many have outlined the fact that we have an obesity crisis, and a great deal more work needs to be done on that. We should look at the benefits in terms of the cost of living, and we need to consider both the climate change and the tourism and economic benefits. I emphasise the need for local champions—not just the local larger champion of a county, but individual parish and county councillors who could make a difference locally. If we can start doing that and start working with health and wellbeing boards and the like, there is great potential to turn the topic from a fringe issue that we passionately debate to a mainstream way of life and way of travelling to work.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. A few minutes ago my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) made the point that if we are to increase cycle percentages, the starting point will vary from place to place. Some places already have a very high percentage, but others have a much lower percentage. I am pleased to say that Edinburgh has a good record of encouraging cycling over the years. In our case 10% of journeys to work are now undertaken by bike, whereas 10 years ago the figure was only 3%, so we have seen a 300% increase, which shows what can be done when there is consistent political commitment and a spending commitment from the local authority, which has certainly been the case in Edinburgh.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend highlights the increase in cycling in Edinburgh. Will he join me in paying tribute to Spokes, the Edinburgh cycling charity, which has done so much to help that increase, and also the volunteers who organised Pedal on Parliament 1 and 2? There were 4,000 cyclists at the Scottish Parliament just a few months ago, and I completed the second one myself, on a tandem.

Mark Lazarowicz: Indeed. I saw that with my own eyes, and I took part on a more conventional bike in that Pedal on Parliament. The point that my hon. Friend makes is a good one. One reason we have seen an increase in Edinburgh in the percentage of journeys undertaken by bike has been the political commitment
	over many years—political commitment in which, I am pleased to say, the Labour party over the decades has taken the lead, and which, to be fair, is now widely shared across the political parties in Edinburgh, just as it is in the Chamber today.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) pointed out—and I should mention that we were joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) in Pedal on Parliament this year—we have also had a very effective grass-roots campaign, first in the form of Spokes, the Lothian cycle campaign, of which I have been a member for many years. That campaign has consistently and in a well-informed way put pressure on local government and central Government to deliver both cycle spending and the integration of policies in wider planning and transport activity, to give cycling a higher profile. We have also seen the very successful Pedal on Parliament initiative, which started in 2012 with a couple of thousand people lobbying the Scottish Parliament at the end of a cycle ride, and which in May this year ended up with 4,000 people in a very impressive lobby of the Scottish Parliament.

Sheila Gilmore: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the significant things at that event was the reaction of those who were there to a spokesperson from the Scottish Government who gave only warm words—compared to the local council, which has committed 5% of its transport budget, to rise by 1% each year to 9%—because cyclists know that words are not good enough?

Mark Lazarowicz: Absolutely. My hon. Friend points to the commitment of Edinburgh council not just to maintain a 5% level of all transport spend, both revenue and capital, on cycling but to increase it year on year by 1%, which is a major commitment. In a briefing to some of us earlier, Chris Boardman said that it was the first city in the UK to make that commitment. That contrasts with the poor record of the SNP Scottish Government in supporting cycling. It is interesting that the success of the Pedal on Parliament campaign in Edinburgh has had the effect of shaming the Scottish Government into putting more money into cycling. That is a tribute to such campaigning work, which is so important at the grass roots.
	I do not want to make jibes at other political parties in what has otherwise been a non-partisan debate, even if those parties are not represented in the Chamber today. In Edinburgh we have now seen a cross-party consensus on cycling policies. Although it is true that our Labour colleagues on the council made a commitment to increase the spending on cycling year on year, it is being done now with the support of the minority party in the Edinburgh council coalition, the Scottish National party. So let us hope that the SNP at Scottish Government level will follow the example of its colleagues on Edinburgh council.
	As has been mentioned a few times in the debate, some of those who organised the Pedal on Parliament campaign to lobby the Scottish Parliament had personal experience of death and serious injury to cyclists on our roads. The increase in deaths and serious injuries to cyclists in England over the past five years has been replicated in Scotland. We have seen a similar increase over the past five years. Let us not forget that as well as
	being in every case a personal tragedy for the families and friends of those involved, every cycling death or serious injury has the effect of discouraging people who might otherwise come back to cycling, because they do not realise the wider relative or absolute safety of cycling compared with most forms of transport.
	There are many reasons why it is vital to have targets to bring down the toll of death and serious injury to cyclists on our roads, and I have no doubt that if the measures proposed in the “Get Britain Cycling” report were implemented, they would dramatically reduce the number of cyclists killed and injured on our roads.

Zac Goldsmith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that of particular importance is the need to address the role of HGVs in cyclists’ deaths? I believe that around half such deaths in London are caused by HGVs. It is surely time, as part of the programme, to push for a much more energetic uptake of the technology measures that would make HGVs much safer and much less dangerous to cyclists—sensors, mirrors, side bars and so on. That surely should be a priority.

Mark Lazarowicz: Absolutely. I know that in some of the e-mails and letters that I have had from constituents in the run-up to this debate, a number of cases have been highlighted where people or their relatives have been the victims of HGVs in that way. That must be dealt with as a priority. It can be done quite easily now with current technology and I hope that the Minister will give some indication in his response as to how these changes can be introduced. They are UK-wide measures and therefore relevant to all of us in the Chamber, from whichever part of the UK we come.

Jane Ellison: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and very pleased that the Backbench Business Committee could find the time for it. It follows a very successful and over-subscribed debate in Westminster Hall last year and perhaps illustrates the point that very over-subscribed debates in Westminster Hall can transfer to the main Chamber and attract even more speakers, as today’s debate has done.
	I speak as an occasional cyclist daughter of a serious veteran road-racing cyclist father. I want to talk today about London in particular and some of the measures that have been adopted here.
	I will first say a bit about why cycling is so important in my constituency. There was an enormous reaction last year in Battersea to The Times “Cities Fit for Cycling” campaign. The average age of people who live in Wandsworth is 32, so that is probably also typical of my constituency. Many people cycle to work and for pleasure, and from quite a wide demographic range, although I agree about the need to widen it, which will set up a virtuous circle. As an occasional cyclist, I know that it can be very off-putting to go into a cycling shop with an old bike and hear three young men in Lycra leaning against the counter saying, “Poor old girl”—I am never quite sure whether they are talking about me or the bike. I encourage all cycling shops to remember
	that they will do better if they are open for business to everybody, including those who might not be such serious cyclists.

Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jane Ellison: I will give way, but only once.

Andrew Turner: One thing to consider is that in the UK there are around 25,000 bicycles but in Germany there are 360,000, and the difference is that many of those bicycles are electric, which can help even the elderly to cycle.

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Electric bikes have had a few honourable mentions in the debate so far, although I am not an expert.
	In London, cycling is set to double over the next 10 years. However, as was pointed out earlier, cities such as London were not designed for cycling; it is a very old city. We must therefore take every opportunity offered by redevelopment to make it more suitable for cycling. We are certainly seeing some innovative thinking in my borough, as I mentioned earlier.

Mary Macleod: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jane Ellison: I am afraid not, as so many Members have prepared speeches and want to get in.
	Wandsworth has come a long way. One of the pleasures of the summer was going to a meeting of the Wandsworth Living Streets campaign and seeing the genuine engagement between them and Councillor Russell King, the cabinet member who covers strategic transport issues. I certainly see that as a positive movement since I first came to Battersea in 2006.
	In last year’s debate I talked about the need to champion engineering solutions, something we have always been good at in Britain. Again, my council is working with Transport for London to bring forward plans for Dutch-style roundabouts, one of which is planned for my constituency. Elsewhere in London we are seeing other plans for engineering solutions, such as bike boxes and signal control junctions with advanced stop lines. ASLs help motorists and cyclists by providing an area for cyclists to wait in front of traffic when the lights are red, making them more easily visible to motorists and giving them the space to move off when the lights turn green. We are also seeing plans to introduce Dutch-style segregated sections of cycle superhighway to increase safety—we have heard a lot about Holland in this debate and paid tribute to its great cycling efforts—which will see one of the longest continuous segregated sections through the heart of London and on to Canary Wharf and Barking. It will be very interesting to see how that develops and whether it could be replicated in other cities.
	The Mayor of London is looking to spend significant sums of money on cycling. The need for leadership has been mentioned, and Members on both sides have been generous in paying tribute to him for his leadership on cycling. London’s cycling budget will double to almost £400 million over the next three years, roughly two and a half times what was previously planned. He is investing
	almost £1 billion in London cycling over the next 10 years as part of the “Vision for Cycling” published in March. That will mean spending £145 million a year on cycling by 2015, which equates to roughly £18 per head, which is similar to the amount spent in Germany and almost on a par with the debate’s favourite country: the Netherlands. It is good to see both Dutch-style engineering coming to London’s roads and Dutch levels of spending per head on cycling.
	With regard to enforcement, one of the debates we are having locally is whether 20 mph zones can be enforced. We are at least seeing TfL, the Met police and the City of London police stepping up the enforcement of safety zones for cyclists and clamping down on people who jump red lights. I hope that we will return to this topic and have regular cycling debates. I hope that in a future debate we can look at some of the other issues that affect cycling, such as planning and residential developments with safe cycle storage, which is a problem in flats. In particular, there are high levels of cycle theft. I have constituents who have lost five, six, seven or even eight bikes in a few short years. I hope we can visit those topics in future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A further 13 right hon. and hon. Members are on my list. I am keen to accommodate them but can do so only, I am sorry to say, by reducing the time limit, with immediate effect, to four minutes. Members can help me to help them to help each other.

Seema Malhotra: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on their leadership and drive on this issue. This has been a refreshing debate. I am delighted to continue my support for safety for cyclists, inspired, as were many other Members of the House, by The Times’ “Cities fit for cycling” campaign. Cycling has many advantages: increasing health, providing a fitter population and work force; saving energy; reducing the degradation of road surfaces; reducing congestion and air quality; and, last but not least, it is also jolly good fun.
	It is great to speak today on what could be the cusp of a big change in Britain to transform life and the experience of roads for future generations—to get Britain cycling not just in individual pockets of the country and to have a holistic vision. I congratulate the all-party cycling group on its excellent report, which advocates the dream of having 10% of all journeys made by bike by 2025. I am glad that it does not mince its words on the need for leadership to start with politicians because we, as politicians, have to think long term in supporting cyclists with a shared commitment across Whitehall, councils, schools, employers, and public transport providers.
	I pay tribute to Hounslow Cycling, particularly to Tim Harris and Brian Smith, who have been strong advocates and campaigners for improved facilities for cyclists. Their excellent strapline is “Looking for a mini-Holland in Hounslow”. Together with Hounslow council they have an exciting longer-term vision for safer cycling, but they have raised some issues that I would like to share with the House. First, there is funding.
	The Government’s response to “Get Britain Cycling” does not provide any assurance of funding for cycling infrastructure in future. It is a shame that when Ministers recently set out annual budgets for road and rail investment for the next eight years they failed to do so for cycling infrastructure.
	Secondly, 20-mph speed limits should be adopted on residential roads as standard. Hounslow Cycling makes the very effective point that we should not have to fight campaigns in each neighbourhood to get safe speed limits and good-quality cycle lanes and design standards governing how roads are built. This should not be done for cyclists; it needs to be done with cyclists, whose input at the design stage can have a real impact on the quality of the result. We know that 20-mph speed limits can make a big difference. In 2009 the British Medical Journal published a review of road casualties in London between 1986 and 2006 having found that 20-mph zones reduced casualties by over 40%.
	Thirdly, it is important to have a national cycling champion—a proposal that has not been accepted so far. Perhaps the Minister might want to say whether that is still the case. Fourthly, we must ensure that where we have rules they are effectively enforced. Some of the behavioural changes that we need, such as cyclists not going through red lights, must be looked at in the interests of their safety as well as that of others.
	Cycling has the potential to be a huge British success story. We can see many more Olympic gold medallists coming through if we encourage good behaviours, start them young, and make sure that everyone feels they can cycle in future.

Oliver Colvile: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this debate through the Backbench Business Committee. I thank him for inviting me to serve on the panel. I suspect that I ended up doing so for one simple reason—that I am a reluctant cyclist. Although I occasionally cycle, the reason I am reluctant is that I do not think it is a particularly safe activity. I fully support The Times’ “Cities fit for cycling” campaign following the case of Mary Bowers, who is still in a coma. I also fully support the implementation of the targets that the Government need to make sure that there is strong political leadership at local and national level and that cycling is safe.
	Over the recess I spoke to a number of people in my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency. Anne-Marie Clark, who rides with the Plymouth Yogis, suggested that the Government should make it compulsory for people to wear helmets. She was appalled that hirers of Boris bikes are not offered helmets. The Mayor of London may want to look at that. She also highlighted Plymouth’s notorious potholes, and I am delighted that the Government and the council are working together to fix them. Anyone who lives in my constituency who wants to have a photograph taken with me and Pothole Pete alongside a pothole is welcome to contact me in order to arrange it.
	The chairman of Plymouth’s cycling campaign, Stuart Mee, said that one of the biggest impediments to getting on two wheels is the traffic. He said that all too often cycle routes stop at junctions and do not take cyclists to
	where they want to go. In Plymouth some routes end abruptly at difficult junctions. He added that cycling can make Plymouth healthier. Several cyclists who watched me do a little bit of cycling through the streets of Plymouth during the sky ride picked up on my comments during the last cycling debate, when I made it clear that if cycling were made safer and I took it up I could put into effect the title of Tom Vernon’s wonderful, well-known radio programme, “Fat Man on a Bicycle”.
	Regular health activities can save a lot of money. It is interesting to note that a child born in Devonport—a really deprived community—is expected to live 14 years less than a child from the city suburbs in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter).
	All parties on Plymouth county council are supportive of this report. It is interesting that the cabinet member for transport on my patch told me recently that over the past four years there has been a 30% increase in cycling. The Sustrans Connect2 project has done an enormous amount to try to connect the west of the city to the city centre. It would be helpful to have a conversation with a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions in order to make sure that it can provide bicycles to those who cannot get to employment opportunities on the other side of the city.
	Finally, I want cycle manufacturers to produce cheaper and more basic cycles. I want to buy one, but I do not want to pay £1,000 for it. I want one a bit like the one Paul Newman rode in “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”; I may then notice rain drops falling on my head.

Paul Blomfield: I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others, not only on securing this debate, but on the excellent work in producing the “Get Britain Cycling” report done by the all-party group on cycling.
	I represent a city that has hills, which can make cycling a bit of a challenge, certainly for those of us who are recreational cyclists. Even in Sheffield, however, cycling rates have doubled over the past eight to 10 years, but we have a long way to go compared with—for a change, I will not mention Holland—hilly Helsingborg in Sweden: 26% of daily commutes into its city centre are made on a bike, compared with less than 1% in Sheffield.
	Having said I would not mention the Netherlands, I will do so briefly, although I hesitate to do so. I spent a few days in Tilberg, a fairly ordinary city in central Netherlands, last year. I was struck by the fascinating consequence of the impact of a planning approach that gives as much focus to the needs of bikes as to those of cars. It provides a contrast to the picture of British cycling painted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). In Tilberg I saw a town in which elderly couples, families and young people all saw bikes as the preferred form of transport for commuting, shopping or an evening out. It was a transformational experience.
	As the “Get Britain Cycling” report highlights, we need to do a number of things to transform the situation in the UK. Clearly, one is funding. That means not
	simply providing more funding, but making sure that the billions we spend on our roads have funds earmarked within them for cycling and meeting the needs of cyclists. That will be an important step towards achievements similar to those of the Dutch.
	When I invited comments from my constituents on today’s debate, I got a huge response. There were a number of common themes. They pressed for more segregated cycle lanes and for more available and consistent cycle lanes that are not used for parking for large parts of the day and that do not disappear on the approach to difficult junctions or hazardous roundabouts. They argued for road infrastructure to be better designed and for speed bumps that do not have gaps at the side. They argued against routes that follow illogical directions. They pushed for the maintenance of cycle routes with regard not only to their quality, but to their visibility to cyclists and motorists. They argued not only for safe routes to schools, public buildings and places of work, but for more secure places for people to leave their cycles when they get there.
	I would like a response from the Minister on one specific point when he winds up: the role of cycling within an integrated approach to transport. I am pleased that south Yorkshire has received funding from the Government for a tram-train pilot, which will see the introduction of a continental model with vehicles that run on both tram and rail tracks. That is a significant development for us and a potential model for the rest of the country. It is important that we get it right. Part of that is ensuring that cyclists are able to take their bikes on to the tram-trains so that both modes of transport can be used on a journey. I have raised that issue with the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive because decisions need to be taken now at the stage of system design. The Department is also a key stakeholder, so I ask the Minister to join me by confirming in his closing remarks that he will seek to ensure that bikes can be carried on to tram-trains in that important pilot.
	To conclude quickly, there is clearly strong cross-party support for the report and I hope that this debate secures a transformation in the UK.

Richard Graham: We have learned some fascinating things today, notably that the Emperor Hadrian created his great wall not to keep the Picts out of England, as many of us thought, but to provide the Northumberland tourism board with a cycleway.
	I join the wave of enthusiasm for this debate and its two sponsors, the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Dudley North (Ian Austin), but I will risk sounding a curmudgeonly note by giving their report, “Get Britain Cycling”, only two cheers rather than three. The reason for that is the report’s specific recommendations. First, I would like the title to be “Let Britain Cycle”, rather than the more prescriptive “Get Britain Cycling”.
	I am not mad about more Government action plans and annual reports—they are not best sellers on the whole. I am not convinced that appointing cycling tsars in central and local government and in devolved authorities “responsible for cycling” will add to the numbers who get on their bikes. Can we all not be responsible for our
	own cycling and, like the best missionaries, let our happiness encourage others to get on their bikes, without having tsars?
	The report recommends national targets. Just as I do not want to see Gloucestershire Royal hospital bristling with targets and performance indicators but bereft of compassion, so I do not want to see cycling targets without the fun. Besides, most of the statistics are extremely dodgy. How, for example, does the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) know that as many women as men cycle in York? Who compiles the statistics? To quote British Cycling,
	“Better measures of cycle use at a local level have been introduced recently…but these only give an indication of self-reported cycle use, not distance travelled or numbers of trips.”
	I therefore believe that the statistical measurements and targets that are suggested by the all-party group at best are optimistic and at worst delude us that we can measure cycling precisely.
	Instead, I would like today to be a celebration of cycling by all of us who have enjoyed cycling. Before the end of this Parliament, I will celebrate 50 years of cycling by going back to my first commercial journey, which I made to pick peas four miles from home. There was a wonderful steep hill—more fun going down than up—very few cars and that great sense of freedom and fun that one gets from being on a bike. That is my focus for this debate: freedom and fun, not traffic jams and road rage, from which so many other travellers seem to suffer.
	I believe the Government have been given a bit of a hard time this evening about their expenditure, because it seems to me that £128 million in five years is good news. I am particularly pleased with the local sustainable transport fund, which for a few hundred thousand pounds will make a huge difference in Gloucester—my constituency—with improved routes, signs, cycle racks and even a cycle hub. I look forward to road testing those new routes in a few weeks with an excellent representative from our county council, our local bike action group chairman, Toby, and BBC Radio Gloucestershire presenter, Mark Cummings. We will also look at some of the problem areas, and if the all-party group or the Minister know of a good solution to roundabouts, please let me know the best practice.
	Our time has been sharply curtailed, so in conclusion: yes, cycling makes life better for all, but I urge the all-party group not to become obsessed with statistics and to focus more on cycling being fun for all. Let the Government expand their programme for the big cities to the small cities. That will be good value for money and great news for places such as Gloucester.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate on a topic that is important to me and a great many of my constituents, and in the curtailed time available I will say something about the need to make cycling a mainstream transport option and address the future funding of cycling.
	Cyclists in my constituency have made it clear that they feel cycling, which they are passionate about, has not been taken seriously enough by policy makers. However, I think they will genuinely appreciate the
	turnout and commitment shown in this debate, which is a sign that the report has already had some impact. When my constituents contacted me they cited simple mistakes and missed opportunities in public policy and planning that have held back cycling and prevented the growth of its popularity. It is difficult to disagree with that sentiment, as the “Get Britain Cycling” report highlighted. Such neglect has prevented cycling from becoming as popular as it might have been, and that is often used as justification for the lack of attention cycling policy receives. As we have heard, cycling undoubtedly brings significant health and environmental benefits, but without political leadership at national and local level it is hard to see how it can move from being a mere afterthought to an acknowledged major means of transportation.
	Having listened to the whole debate, it is important to acknowledge that things are not as good as they need to be. A lot of Members have highlighted great practice in their areas, but if we give the impression that we are satisfied with the status quo, that would be wrong. To get things right, the Government, local authorities and transport bodies must ensure that the needs of cyclists are properly taken into account. For the benefit of any of my constituents reading this speech, I acknowledge that my local authority has not always met expectations in that regard, but I will say, if I can, how we are trying to correct that.
	The “Get Britain Cycling” report offers a number of practical solutions to address those problems. One is the cross-departmental cycling action plan. That sounds as if it comes straight from “Yes Minister”, but the goal of ensuring that cycling is embodied at top levels of strategic planning and the political agenda is the right one. Taking things a step further, local and central Government have appointed lead politicians for cycling, which again must be a good thing. For example, if we look at the commitment shown to cycling in London on a cross-party basis over many years, we see what can be achieved with a strong strategic plan coupled with the political will to make it successful. Across my constituency and the Greater Manchester area, I am pleased to say that action is being taken to help get Britain cycling.
	As I said, I recognise that in the past people have come to me with legitimate complaints because they felt we have not taken advantage of our position as a Greater Manchester borough that sits between Manchester city centre and the Peak District national park, and we have not used cycling fully enough to address that area’s poor public health. Now, however, Transport for Greater Manchester, in partnership with constituent local authorities, is implementing a bold strategy that combines central Government funds with local money to make significant changes. As well as looking at investment in the road network to make cycle-friendly changes to roads and junctions, it is trying to provide facilities specifically for the use of cyclists who wish to ditch their car and cycle to work. Tameside council has taken the lead in that, trying to build a cycling hub in the centre of the borough of Ashton-under-Lyne. Once open, it will give commuting cyclists the chance to lock up their bike, get changed and have a shower before heading to work.
	Such ideas lead to the major issue at the heart of this debate which is how we fund and allocate money to transport projects, and the role of cycling within that.
	To make things happen there must obviously be a strong commitment from the Government. I welcome the money that has been announced, although there are concerns about the loss of Cycling England. If we are to catch up with our European neighbours—we have heard a lot about Holland today—we must clearly move towards that £10 per head target, as the APPG report recommends.

Caroline Nokes: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the all-party group on securing this important debate, which has provoked a great deal of interest from my constituents. I have had a large number of e-mails, although it is worth noting that only one of them came from a woman. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) and the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) commented on the cycling gender gap. It is interesting to note—this comes from the Breeze website—that more than three times as many men as women participate in cycling.
	In Hampshire, the bikability scheme is run by Mountbatten school in Romsey. It gave evidence to the all-party group and has contributed to the “Get Britain Cycling” report, which is an excellent report containing brilliant ideas. Annually, the Hampshire schools cycling partnership delivers in excess of 12,000 cycle courses throughout Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton, in more than 300 schools. There is a commitment within the partnership to make cycle training available to all, and to make both bikes and helmets available to those who do not have them. There is a belief that cycling is an essential life skill, and that every young person should receive a safe grounding in cycling skills and road use.
	Test Valley borough has, for the past 16 years, run the Test valley tour, an off-road cycling event that encourages participants from serious cyclists down to the weekend pedaller to enjoy the Hampshire countryside. This weekend, as part of the borough’s Olympic legacy project, a new BMX track is being opened in Valley park. There is not only a competition-standard track, but a learner track, to ensure that all levels of cyclist can get involved. It is important to remember that cycling is about not just mountain and road bikes; people can participate in a broad range of cycling. It is not just about getting from A to B, which much of the debate has focused on; cycling can be fun for its own sake.
	It would be wrong to suggest that all is rosy in Hampshire. The experience of off-road cycle ways and of the conflict with road junctions is the same as we have heard from many hon. Members. Test Valley works hard to ensure that there is a network of off-road cycle routes, but the one that always comes to my attention is the route running alongside the A3057. Often, we see cyclists on the road rather than the cycleway, which frustrates motorists. However, when I drill down with cyclists as to what the problem is, they tell me not only that we need capital investment to provide cycleways, but that cycleways need maintaining. They say that the small stones they find if the cycleways are not swept can be lethal to the thin tyres of road bikes. Indeed, the tarmac surface of the road is often better for serious athletes wishing to train and get up to good speeds.
	There is also conflict with the many junctions on the road way. I am thinking in particular of Heron lane in Timsbury, where the markings are not clear. Road users seeking to access the A3057 often meet speeding cyclists on the cycleway who believe they have priority, when in fact the motorist has priority. There are many near misses, which provokes anxiety for motorist and cyclist alike.
	I am not suggesting that better signage is a panacea. In rural areas, opting for red or—dare I say it?—blue tarmac is incongruous, and does not fit well with the countryside. It is important that we look for tailor-made solutions and that we are innovative in junction improvements. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.
	I should conclude with one suggestion from a cyclist, who said that we need a similar legislative framework to that of Italy—hon. Members will be pleased that he identified Italy rather than the Netherlands. In Italy, the presumption is that the liability for any accident is with the motorist and not with the cyclist.
	One of our great Olympians, Laura Trott, said at the weekend that:
	“It’s not always the car’s fault…Cyclists need to help themselves”.
	Of course, she is right.

Margaret Ritchie: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I commend the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for introducing it on behalf of the all-party group on cycling.
	I confess that I am not an avid cyclist, but I freely acknowledge the health, social and economic benefits of cycling. In fact, cycling can become not only an economic tool in town centres, but a regeneration tool. It can help to reduce congestion and pollution in town centres. Those factors have already been acknowledged in the report. The health, economic and social benefits of cycling are, as the report highlights, well documented and range from reducing air pollution in our cities to promoting spending in small businesses along commuter cycling routes and improving, through exercise, the general health of our population.
	There is a growing attitudinal change among the public, who are ahead of us in many ways in understanding the benefits of cycling and in recognising that this issue must not be framed as a debate of cyclist versus the car driver. This attitudinal change is sadly yet to happen within Government. The Department for Transport’s response to the report demonstrates that when it states:
	“Cycle spending that makes a tangible contribution to other Government departments, such as Health, Education, Sport and Business, should be funded from those budgets, not just the DfT.”
	While that statement is undoubtedly true, by presenting it as a bold opening statement it is clear that the Department is perhaps trying to pass the buck. Perhaps the Minister, in his closing remarks, will assuage my fears and prove that that is not the case.
	If we are to make gains in preventive health for our population and make cycling safer, it is imperative that the Government’s attitude changes and a pro-cycling, cross-departmental approach is developed. I used to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, where one of my colleagues is currently bringing forward a
	private Members’ Bill to introduce more 20 mph speed limits. I am conscious of what the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said—that they are successful only if they can be enforced—but there is no doubt that people want to see them happen, particularly in housing estates.
	The money committed by the Government to cycling projects was dedicated to the financing of specific worthwhile projects. Reference has been made in the debate to the fact that there needs to be a more equitable spread of that money, so that the benefits of cycling can be seen. Only a few weeks ago, as part of the world police and fire games, my constituency hosted mountain bike trials that require considerable skill and involve a high level of risk, but they have much investment in training.
	Hopefully, this debate will highlight the issue of cycling and encourage the Government.

Alan Reid: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on introducing the debate, and all members of the all-party cycling group on their excellent report, “Get Britain Cycling”. I support the report’s recommendations, in particular for an annual cycling action plan and for sustained funding for cycling.
	Liberal Democrats have long recognised the positive benefits of cycling. It assists in tackling road congestion, reducing air pollution and supporting our economy. Not only is it a fast, cheap and green mode of transport, it promotes a healthier lifestyle too. It is a sobering fact that only 2% of journeys in the UK are made by bicycle. Our European neighbours put us to shame in this regard. It is also important to note that approximately half of all journeys made by car are only a few miles. Surely we can encourage people to make some of those journeys by bike. I am pleased that targets are included in the motion, and I hope that the Government adopt them.
	In 2010, the gross contribution of cycling to the UK economy was almost £3 billion. According to calculations, if we encourage more people to cycle we could save the UK economy a few hundred million pounds through reduced road congestion and about £70 million to £80 million through less pollution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), the Minister for cycling, has been a champion of cycling for many years. I am pleased that he has continued that attitude in government and done a good job supporting cycling. For example, last March the Department for Transport published its door-to-door strategy, which set out how the Government are encouraging people to combine different methods of transport in their journeys and increase the number of journeys made by bicycle. In April, my hon. Friend the Minister for cycling announced £40 million of funding, which is being used at 78 locations to make roads and junctions safer for cyclists. All those schemes are due to be completed within 12 months.
	In August, the coalition Government announced a dramatic boost for cycling funding. The Prime Minister showed the Government’s commitment by making the announcement himself, which represents the biggest
	ever single cash injection for cycling. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for more people to be able to ride out with confidence on our nation’s roads. This Government are a good supporter of cycling. However, we cannot afford to be complacent on this issue. The all-party group’s report offers us the chance to support cycling and ensure that the Government continue to work hard to promote the needs and safety of cyclists, alongside those of other road users. I wholeheartedly support today’s motion. I hope the Government will build on the good work they have already done by taking forward the report’s recommendations.

Nia Griffith: We have already heard this evening about the health and environmental benefits of cycling, through the reduction in pollution, congestion and pressure on city parking, and about the economic benefits from a cheap form of transport. In recent years we have seen some fantastic recreational facilities provided, such as the coastal path in my constituency and a fantastic cycle path that goes from Llanelli up to Tumble along a disused railway that has a very gradual gradient.
	However, this evening we are not just talking about recreational facilities; we are talking about how to get people cycling much more in their everyday lives, and not just on holiday. It needs to be practical and safe for people to go by bike wherever they need to go—whether to work or to the shops, the doctor’s, the leisure centre or the cinema, and so forth. That means making routes everywhere safer and more pleasant for cyclists. We need proper investment—at least £10 a head, as the report suggests—to ensure the infrastructure. We need the political will to prioritise spending on cycling. We need joined-up thinking across Departments. We need thinking at the initial stages of planning for any infrastructure, but we also need to look at retrospective measures.
	There have been some adaptations in our cities, but there is a lot more to do. Some of our out-of-town shopping centres, for example, are a disgrace when it comes to providing for pedestrians and cyclists. There is a lot of work to be done there. We need to think imaginatively about some of our rural roads. How do we get better visibility? How do we warn that there are cyclists about? How do we make some well-used stretches of rural roads, on which people want to get from one facility to another, practical on a bicycle? We have heard about encouraging children and young people through training programmes in schools, but we also need training programmes for young adults—possibly at university—and for adults when they start work. We talk about encouraging people to cycle, particularly young children and school pupils, but we also need to be aware that designated cycle areas, such as along canals or old railway tracks, might not be suitable if they are not well lit and visible. Those areas need to be in the public domain and within easy contact of a lot of people; otherwise they will not be suitable for use by children going to school.
	There are all sorts of ways to encourage people, whether though special events, such as “Get your bike out” days, or giving them opportunities to have their bikes looked at, maintained and working again, and getting back into the habit of going by bike. We also need to sort out the issues with other forms of transport.
	Although there has been a lot of progress, there are still times when people cannot take their bikes on trains and awkward incidents when there seems to be no joined-up thinking.
	I would like quickly to mention the Welsh Government’s Active Travel (Wales) Bill, which will go through stage three of the legislative procedure on 1 October. The Bill aims to encourage non-recreational active travel routes for walking and cycling, which are used by people for work, school or shopping. The Bill would require local authorities in Wales to produce and distribute comprehensive maps showing all the active travel routes in their areas and, most importantly, to make continuous improvements to the range and quality of active travel routes. They will be expected to make year-on-year improvements, either by expanding the number of facilities or by upgrading existing ones.
	On that note, I would like to ask the Minister, who has now heard the tremendous cross-party support for increased investment in cycling, whether he will try to convince his colleagues across Government that this is the right way forward, and that we want better investment as well as clear, directional thinking and the real political will to put cycling right at the heart of Government.

Pauline Latham: I congratulate the Government on providing the extra money to support the development of new, safe cycle routes that are separated from traffic. Many people are saying that there should be more money. Yes, we can always spend more money, but the Government have shown great leadership by making this money available. I was especially pleased that some of it has been directed towards national parks, including the Peak District national park to the north of my constituency. Many people spend their leisure time there, yet it is still very dangerous for families to cycle along many of the area’s roads.
	My constituency lies across the Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site, the cradle of the industrial revolution which kick-started modern economies, the development of technology and, ultimately, globalisation. However, it is still not possible for a family to cycle safely across the heritage site from one historic site to the next. Part of the heritage site falls within the national park, but the part in my constituency and in Derby, to the south, does not. I would like to ask the Minister to provide some funding to enable the extension of the proposed cycleways down through the world heritage site, via the historic mills at Belper, Milford and Darley Abbey, to the Silk Mill museum in Derby, which many people do not realise was the world’s first multi-storey factory.
	The tourism business that could be generated by attracting people throughout the world to share the interpretation of the world’s industrial heritage should not be underestimated. Once the new velodrome in Derby South has been completed and opened, even more cyclists will be attracted to the area. Germany, Austria and Italy have already harnessed the potential of attracting cycle tourists to increase their tourism income, which has the benefit of being spent mostly in local villages and towns, either in the small-scale catering industry or on buying regional products, thereby supporting
	local growth in jobs and the economy. We are trying to do that in Belper, particularly through the sale of local food and local products. Furthermore, Transition Derby is trying to stop people using their cars one day a week, which is not too much to ask people to do.
	Those are not the only benefits that could come from extending the cycleway to the south. The added value of providing a safe cycleway from the Derwent valley into Derby is that it would also serve the needs of numerous commuters living in the towns and villages in the valley, especially Belper, Milford, Duffield, Little Eaton, Allestree and Darley Abbey. It would provide a safe, healthy, carbon-free alternative mode of transport that would reduce congestion and pollution. The benefits of such expenditure to leisure users and city communities is self-evident, and I therefore ask the Minister to consider adding to the current proposals for cycleways in national parks and to fund an extension of the cycle route from Matlock—he will be familiar with Matlock, as it is in the constituency of the Secretary of State—down to Derby through the Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site.

Caroline Lucas: I warmly welcome the recommendations in the “Get Britain Cycling” report, and I want to add my congratulations to the all-party parliamentary cycling group on the work that it has done on it. The benefits of increasing cycling to public health, air quality, congestion, the local economy and people’s overall quality of life are huge and undisputed, and the report provides a comprehensive set of steps towards achieving a bold vision.
	A cycling revolution is not just about incremental growth in a few areas of the country. As the report sets out, we should be aiming for
	“a dramatic increase in the number and diversity of people who cycle, because they see it as a safe and normal activity.”
	So, although the warm words about cycling and the extra funding are important, I have been disappointed by the Government’s rather half-hearted and complacent responses to so many of the other recommendations. It has been striking to hear the breadth of support from all parts of the House for more priority to be given to cycling, and I hope that the Minister will now take another look at the merits of being more proactive in making the cycling revolution a reality.
	Sitting here this afternoon, I was impressed to hear so many local examples of good practice, and I would like to add a few of my own from Brighton and Hove. Brighton and Hove is a very cycle-friendly city, so let me highlight a few of its fantastic local initiatives. These powerfully illustrate some of the tremendous benefits that could be unlocked by acting on the report and through meaningful political leadership at national level, too.
	For example, Brighton and Hove Albion football club is constantly encouraging, promoting and facilitating cycling to the stadium, which is about five miles from the city centre. “Bike train” rides are organised by experienced volunteers to help cyclists to take up a good amount of road space and benefit from safety in numbers. All that helps cut air pollution, so it is not just those on the bikes who are reaping the health benefits. I have taken part in bike train rides on a number of occasions and have experienced how incredibly helpful
	such schemes are, particularly for getting less confident people on a bike and ensuring that they enjoy the experience by making it feel normal and safe.
	Secondly, there is to be an exciting new cycling hub at Brighton railway station, which was approved in July by the city council. This will increase the number of bike spaces by 420 to a total of 670, and provide shower and changing facilities, a bike shop, a café, a cycle repair outlet and bike hire—with these all in one place right at the station, which is great for new and experienced cyclists alike.
	Thirdly, we recently introduced a new 1.8 km cycle lane that separates bikes from motorised traffic along Old Shoreham road. People feel much safer, cycle journeys have rocketed by 30%, and it has been praised by many. Such “Copenhagen-style” improvements are crucial for cyclists to feel safe, especially those who are new to cycling or less confident.
	In response to requests from residents, the city council is now consulting on a second phase of a programme to introduce 20 mph speed limits. Again, this is not just about cyclists, but about improving the street environment for all road users, including car drivers, by reducing the number and severity of collisions and casualties, improving traffic flows and making the city a safer and better place to live in. A default speed limit of 20 mph is a key recommendation of the report, which I think Ministers should not dismiss so quickly. Changing speed limits is not expensive, and if we are serious about “cycle proofing” all roads, adequate long-term funding is needed for schemes such as new cycle lanes.
	Finally, let me say a few words about the great environmental gains—both for local air quality and cutting carbon pollution—that would follow from the UK becoming a true cycling nation. I end by emphasising that there are also very good economic and social reasons, which would alone provide ample grounds for full implementation of all the report’s recommendations. For example, according to a Sustrans report last year, 1.5 million people are in transport poverty. These people are unable to get to jobs, shops, health care or school because they cannot drive or run a car, while public transport is inaccessible and they cannot use bikes either. More investment in bikes would help them tremendously.

Jason McCartney: As one of the panel members of the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”, I am delighted to take part in today’s debate. I am delighted, too, because I am undertaking the parliamentary sports fellowship with British Cycling for the coming year.
	I fully support the report’s aims, especially the target to have 10% of all journeys made by bike by 2025 and 25% by the year 2050. The motion also calls for the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual cycling action plan and sustained funding for cycling. I would particularly like to welcome the latest Government action, which includes making it easier for councils to install cycle facilities, cycle proofing of road infrastructure and stumping up £148 million of new funding between now and 2015.
	In fact, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary State for Transport, I was at the headquarters of the Peak District national park over the summer, hearing
	about its ambitious plans to improve and encourage cycling there. As part of that national park is in my constituency, I was delighted to hear that cycling in the park is being given a £7.5 million boost to enhance the cycle trail network. This will put an estimated 3.5 million people within reach of the Peak District national park cycle network, either by bike or following just a short train ride.
	Cycling has gone ballistic in my part of West Yorkshire. My personal passion began with a series of country-wide charity bike rides with Huddersfield Town football club. The “Keep it Up” campaign has raised just short of £1 million for the Yorkshire air ambulance, as hundreds of Huddersfield Town fans have been sponsored to cycle to and from opposing teams’ football grounds. Well done to all of them!
	The Grand Départ will go through my constituency on Sunday 6 July next year. A huge number of cyclists are already out on the route, B and Bs are booked up, and cycling-related festivals and events are being planned. The Government are backing the Tour de France in Yorkshire with £10 million of funding. However, there will not be just one day of the Tour in Yorkshire, because there is now a legacy project called “Get Yorkshire Cycling”—a 10-year strategy which will unlock potential in the fields of health, the economy, the environment, transport, tourism and community engagement.
	As well as investment, cycling safety is paramount, and has been foremost in the minds of many people in my constituency this summer. John Radford of Meltham is a popular cycling champion, but he is now fighting for his life following a collision with a car. He suffered severe head injuries and had to be airlifted to Leeds general infirmary, where he remains critically ill. John is chairman of Huddersfield and District cyclists’ touring club, and has been working tirelessly to promote cycling locally and nationally.
	Cycling is a community. Last month I joined 200 of John’s friends to take part in a six-mile ride to show our support and help to raise cash for the Yorkshire air ambulance, which flew him to hospital. The ride was organised by Councillor Martyn Bolt, the mayor of Kirklees. I know that all Members will want to send their best wishes to John and his family.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jason McCartney: I will not, because I have only 30 seconds left.
	British Cycling is continuing to work with Ministers and the likes of Sustrans and the CTC to push for change. This is not just about safety. Cycling needs to sit at the heart of transport policy, and as it becomes more and more popular, we need to make it safer as well. We need better collaboration between Government departments. Mr. Speaker, let’s “Get Britain Cycling”.

Sheila Gilmore: Some of my constituents who urged me to take part in the debate may have been surprised when I wrote back to say that, although I would put in for it, I could not guarantee that I would be able to speak, or able to speak for long. I think that, in general, the British public underestimate
	the extent and seriousness of the House’s interest in cycling. Debates on the subject have been greatly over-subscribed, at least during the time for which I have been a Member of Parliament, and I think that that is a huge step forward.
	It is a pity that a debate which has been so well supported will not receive much publicity. It will not, I suspect, feature on the front pages of many newspapers, despite our best endeavours. That is probably because it is too consensual. The British public, or perhaps the media, are sometimes a bit odd in that respect. We are always being urged to be more consensual, but when we are more consensual, we tend to be ignored, and what we say is not considered very important. I hope that at least some attention will be paid to this debate, because—as was pointed out by the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—it is important for us to mention not just the problems but the fun and enjoyment of cycling.
	It is also important for people to realise that Members of Parliament are human beings who “get” cycling. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) said that we might not look like MPs if we turned up sweating from cycling, but MPs are people as well. When I was first a councillor and cycled around my ward all the time, my constituents initially thought that I was a touch eccentric, but as they got to know me, they realised that that was actually a very sensible thing to do. Cycling gets us to where we want to be very quickly and efficiently, especially in cities. Sadly, in rural areas cycle use is falling rather than rising, and that is clearly an issue that we should think about.
	When I was a young trainee solicitor, I was asked to deliver an offer. Housing offers had to be delivered by a deadline of noon, and this was before the days of fax and e-mail: they had to be delivered physically. When my boss said that the offer must be delivered by 12 o’clock, I said “I will just go and get my bike”, but he threw me the car keys and insisted that I take the car. Of course, taking the bike would have been much more efficient. Once you get the car to the destination, assuming that was in time, there would be nowhere to park it, and in parking it five minutes’ walk away, absolutely nothing has been gained. People have to understand that.
	Even in a city such as mine, where generally, as I indicated in an intervention, a lot of money is being spent on cycling and there is a lot of support for it, the proposal for how to deal with Princes street once the trams arrive and start working was, disappointingly, to have an only one-way cycle route, along that prime street of the city. One argument for that was that the alternative route, which would have had a two-way cycle route, was on one of the big national cycle routes and people would want to go through it. I greatly admire people who do long-distance cycling, but I am not one of them; for many of us we are talking about a daily event, and people want to go from A to B easily. Perhaps Edinburgh council is listening, along with other councils, because they have to make it easy for us to get to where we want to be, as that will encourage a lot of people to get cycling.

David Rutley: I did not learn the joys of cycling in Holland or even in Hexham; I learned them in the constituency of the Minister when I was a young teenager. However, I have gained a far greater appreciation of cycling since becoming the Member of Parliament for Macclesfield. At the elite level, we are fortunate to have the national cycling centre in Manchester, and Team GB were often seen training on the junction between the Cheshire plain and the Peak district, where we in Macclesfield are so fortunate to live. We saw them cycling up the Cat and Fiddle road and clearly setting the standard on how to take elite sport forward.
	My area is also privileged to have Dame Sarah Storey, our most decorated Paralympian of all time, who lives in Disley. It is only fitting, but I am delighted that Disley parish council is unveiling a commissioned sculpture in her memory in a few weeks’ time and celebrating her tremendous accomplishments with an amazing cycling day in the village. We are also fortunate enough to have an incredible cycling club, Macclesfield Wheelers, which sets an incredibly high standard with its legendary cycling trials between Macclesfield and Congleton. It is also setting a really high standard as advocates for its pastime and passion, and the club has certainly helped me to gain a greater understanding of what needs to happen to take cycling forward.
	What most encourages me is the number of people taking to cycling on their own initiative, whether it is getting out into the Peak District—many MPs have spoken about that—enjoying Macclesfield forest, getting out on the Middlewood way with their families or just taking the bike to go to the shops. The public in Britain get cycling. They understand its benefits, and not only because of the Olympics and the Tour de France, with the great successes of Sir Bradley Wiggins; they are seeing the health and well-being benefits of cycling.

Jim Shannon: One thing that has perhaps been omitted from the report is the issue of safety helmets for children under the age of 15. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that their use should be compulsory for people of that age in order to prevent accidents, because that is when the greatest number of accidents takes place?

David Rutley: That subject has been well debated today. There are pros and cons, but the overwhelming suggestion from people here is that if we make helmets compulsory, fewer people will cycle. We are trying to say, “Let’s get people cycling.” This is not about having a health and safety-fest; it is about encouraging people to get out cycling and seeing the health and well-being benefits, which are profound. They are also lifelong, unlike those associated with football, rugby or some of the other sports we are keen to support.
	The other thing we should note is that cycling also gives a real boost to the local economy, particularly in rural areas. Cycling is vital as it provides revenues for countless B and Bs, guest houses, cafés, pubs and, let us not forget, local cycling shops, which seem to be springing up in many villages. Given those important benefits to tourism, I am delighted to join my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and colleagues from elsewhere in highlighting what the Peak District national park is doing to get more people cycling through its cycling festival, which I believe is taking place next
	weekend. I have also been out cycling with the Secretary of State for Transport on the Monsal trail. That just shows that he is absolutely committed to, and understands the importance of, cycling.
	As co-chair of the all-party group on mountaineering, I am passionate about campaigning to get people out and active outdoors. Normally, this is about getting them out and active on two feet, through the “Britain on Foot” campaign, but I recognise today that it is vital to get people active on two wheels as well. It is fantastic to see the degree of participation in this debate.
	I am delighted that the Government are taking action in this area. Many have talked about the important funding for cycling ambition grants, which will have profound benefits for cities such as Manchester and national parks such as the Peak District. I am pleased that more steps are being taken to encourage the setting up of 20 mph speed limit zones and to make it easier for them to be established. However, I was talking to Macclesfield Wheelers and its chairman, Peter McGuckian, earlier today, and there is more that needs to be done. We must improve signage to ensure that people feel safer on the roads when they are out cycling. He also talked about the importance of setting up more advanced stop positions, which are vital for cyclists. He also asked me to urge that motor-related offences against cyclists should be taken much more seriously than they have been in the past.
	Let me conclude by focusing on the potential for cycling. My mother is Danish, so I understood the importance of cycling from an early age. For many people it is not just a sport, an outdoor activity or a mode of transport—it is part of people’s lives. There is real potential to make this a way of life that will benefit countless people.

Maria Eagle: This has been a excellent debate with positive contributes from 33 colleagues on both sides of the House. The clear message is that Parliament wants to see greater support for cycling, not just from the Government but from all parties. That is the call to which I want to respond on behalf of the Opposition this evening.
	First, let me pay tribute to the all-party group on cycling. The “Get Britain Cycling” report is excellent, well-argued and persuasive and has had a considerable influence as we have reconsidered our approach to cycling as party of Labour’s policy review. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing and opening the debate on behalf of the all-party group, but I also particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). He also made an excellent contribution to the debate, of course. Less visibly, but absolutely vital, is the energy with which he has sought to persuade my colleagues and I that we must make a much greater commitment to cycling and that we must go significantly further than the important progress that we started to make in government.
	Finally, let me mention my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). He not only made a customarily informed and passionate contribution today, but has been a powerful advocate for both cycling and improving safety on our roads for many years—advocacy that, coming from a respected
	Transport Minister, delivered real policies that saved lives. I am very sorry to have lost his expertise as a Member of our Front-Bench team. However, I know that he will continue to make a considerable contribution on this and many other issues in the future, albeit from the Back Benches.
	I am clear that supporting cycling is a hugely cost-effective way of improving our personal and national quality of life. When nearly a quarter of all car journeys are for less than a mile, making cycling a more attractive option has great potential to cut congestion and boost the economy. With families facing a cost of living crisis, making more journeys by bike is a good way to reduce the impact of rising fuel costs on the household budget, and as a cost and time-effective way of staying fit, to which many Members have attested this evening, cycling has real health benefits. Of course, it also benefits the environment, helping us to cut emissions and reduce transport’s contribution to climate change, which remains significant.
	The message is being heard, with 20% more people cycling than a decade ago, yet if one goes to the Netherlands—as I also have as part of our policy review—it is apparent how much further we still have to go. In Holland, a third of all trips to and from rail stations are by bike compared with 2% here. I have seen for myself the fantastic facilities for cyclists at stations in Holland, where there are not just bike spaces but undercover staffed storage with people on hand to repair and maintain bikes while owners are at work. It is a matter of investment—10 times more is spent per head of population on cycling in Holland than in the UK—but it is also about attitude and commitment. I am sorry to say that we have not seen the commitment from the Government that we need to see to increase cycling and to make it safer to cycle.
	Immediately on taking office, Transport Ministers abolished Cycling England and, more importantly, its £60 million annual budget and the cycling city and towns programme that we established. Since then, policy after policy has set back the progress that we were making. Targets to cut deaths and serious injuries on our roads were abolished, even though they brought focus to efforts to improve safety. The THINK! road safety campaigns have been degraded, road traffic police numbers have fallen and support for speed cameras has been axed, which has made enforcement much more difficult. Longer HGVs have been given the green light, despite the Department for Transport’s analysis of consequential increased road casualties.
	This summer we heard the long-awaited promise that axed funding for cycling would be restored, but headlines about the figure of £148 million turned out to be spin. The reality is an average of just £38 million a year until 2016, with the rest to be found by local authorities, which is a third less than the previous Government’s investment. With only one tenth of the population benefiting, that is simply too little, too late, after three wasted years.
	It is clear that we need a step change in the Government’s commitment to cycling. There should be a long-term commitment that is supported by all parties and that will last across Parliaments. I shall briefly set out clear proposals for what should form the basis of that new
	commitment and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to each of them so that we can begin to forge the cross-party consensus that cycling needs and deserves.
	First, we must end the stop-start approach to supporting cycling, which means that we need long-term funding of the infrastructure needed for dedicated separate safe cycling routes. Ministers recently set out annual budgets for rail and road investment up to 2020-21, but they failed to do so for cycling infrastructure, which means that while there is a £28 billion commitment for roads, we have only a one-off £114 million from central Government for cycling, and that is spread across three years. It is time for a serious rethink of priorities within the roads budget with a proportion reallocated to deliver a long-term funding settlement for cycling infrastructure.
	The priority for investment to support cycling must be dedicated separated infrastructure to create safe routes. The focus has too often been on painting a thin section at the side of the road a different colour. Genuinely separated cycle routes are vital not only to improve safety but, as we have heard from many hon. Members, to build confidence and to encourage those who are not used to cycling to make the switch to two wheels. It is also important that a commitment to new infrastructure does not become an excuse not to improve the safety of cyclists on roads where there is no separation. The priority should be redesigning dangerous junctions where almost two thirds of cyclist deaths and serious injuries due to collisions take place. We need a much greater use of traffic light phasing to give cyclists a head start.
	Secondly, we need to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, so I propose a cycle safety assessment before new transport schemes are given the green light. In the same way in which Departments have to carry out regulatory impact assessments and equality impact assessments, there should be an obligation to cycle-proof new policies and projects. We need new enforceable design standards and measures to ensure compliance.
	Thirdly, we need national targets to cut deaths and serious injuries to be restored, but they should sit alongside a new target to increase levels of cycling. The number of cyclist deaths is tragically at a five-year high. Of course, targets alone are not the only answer, but they help to focus minds and efforts, so Ministers are wrong to reject them. However, it is vital to ensure that targets do not perversely lead to local authorities and others seeing the way to cut deaths and injuries as discouraging cycling. In fact, cycling becomes safer when more cyclists are on the road, so we should learn from the success that has been achieved in European countries that have set clear goals to increase levels of cycling alongside the policies necessary to achieve that.
	Fourthly, we should learn from Wales and extend to England its active travel legislation, which sets out clear duties on local authorities to support cycling. Local authorities are central to devising, prioritising and delivering measures to support cycling, so it is important that additional support from central Government is matched by clear obligations. To assist councils, we should provide them with a best-practice toolkit to boost cycling numbers that is based on what we learned from the cycling city and towns programme and evidence from abroad. Councils
	should be supported to deliver 20 mph zones, which should increasingly become an effective default in most residential areas.
	Fifthly, we must ensure that children and young people have every opportunity to cycle and to do so safely. The Government should not have ended long-term funding certainty for the Bikeability scheme, nor axed the requirement for school travel plans. Those decisions can and should be reversed. Sixthly, we need to make it easier for cycling to become part of the journey to work, even when the commute is too far to do by bike alone. Employers can play an important role in providing access to showers, changing facilities and lockers. However, our public transport providers need to step up and do much more too. Instead of the Government’s approach, which has been to propose a weakening of franchise obligations, we should toughen up the requirement to provide station facilities and on-train space for bikes in rail contracts.
	Seventhly, we need to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done in cases where collisions lead to the death of cyclists and serious injuries. I welcome the recent commitment from Ministers to initiate a review of sentencing guidelines. It is vital that this is a comprehensive review of the justice system and how it protects vulnerable road users, and it should be concluded without delay in this Parliament. We are certainly willing to work with Government to implement sensible changes that may be proposed.
	Finally, we need tough new rules and requirements on heavy goods vehicles that are involved in about a fifth of all cycling fatalities, despite the fact that HGVs make up just 6% of road traffic—there is clearly an issue there. We should look at the case for taking HGVs out of our cities at the busiest times, as has happened elsewhere in Europe, including in Paris and Dublin. As a minimum, we should require safety measures on all HGVs, including sensors, audible truck-turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars, as well as better training and awareness. I have previously suggested to Ministers that the £23 million that is expected to be raised annually from the new HGV road-charging scheme could be used to support the road haulage industry to achieve that. I hope that that idea will be taken seriously and considered by Ministers, along with all those clear proposals. Taken together, I believe that that would be a significant improvement in the Government’s current approach, and it is something that all parties could support across the House.
	Cycling has the potential to be a huge British success story, but it needs a new approach and a shared commitment across Government, councils, schools, employers and public transport providers. Most of all, it needs Ministers to cut the spin and instead give cycling infrastructure greater priority within the existing transport investment plans that they have set out. It is time to end the stop-start approach that is getting in the way of progress and agree a cross-party, long-term commitment to cycling.

Norman Baker: I welcome the fact that the debate has taken place. It follows the very successful debate in Westminster Hall, which was also engendered by the all-party group on cycling. I pay particular tribute to
	my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), on their leadership of that group, and, indeed, to all members of that group for a very good report. I welcome the fact that this has been a well-attended debate, and that the contributions from Members from all parts of the House have, almost without exception, been positive and constructive. I am particularly pleased to hear the news of individual MPs taking up cycling. That is now on the record in
	Hansard
	, and doubtless their constituents will hold them to that commitment.
	The Government wants more people to cycle more often, more safely. We are determined to drive that forward. We have a good record to date, but I want to make it clear that we want to go even further. I believe that we have the most pro-cycling Government that the country has ever had, and we are determined to go even further.
	Cycling is good for the environment, good for individual health, and good for the economy. It is good for the environment, because it cuts carbon emissions, noise and air pollution. It is good for individual health, and I am delighted both that the former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), has attended the debate, and by the contribution that the Department of Health has made towards to cycling efforts in government, including the financial contribution that it has made to some of our projects. NHS reforms provide an opportunity at local level for the public health function to be discharged in conjunction with the transport function in a way that simply was not possible before.
	Cycling is also good for the economy. Last week, I was in Cambridge, where 47% of adults cycle at least once a week. I congratulate the three councils there: Conservative Cambridgeshire county council, South Cambridgeshire district council, and my Lib Dem colleagues on Cambridge city council, who are working together to promote cycling. The lesson there is that whereas the population of Cambridge has risen from 105,000 to 125,000 in a decade, car travel is flat because the councils have incentivised cycling. If the three councils together had not done that, there would be gridlock in Cambridge as a consequence. So the lesson is that those who want to help the local economy will help the local cyclist. Those who advocate anti-cycling policies damage the local economy.
	It is worth pointing out that a 20% increase in cycling levels from 2010 to 2015 could save the economy £207 million in reduced traffic congestion and £71 million in reduced pollution levels. Members on both sides of the House who have drawn attention to the economic value of cycling are absolutely right to do so.

Greg Mulholland: My hon. Friend knows that there will be a huge boost to tourism in Yorkshire from the Tour de France next year. I did not get the chance during the debate to mention that in Otley, which is part of the route, and the birthplace of Lizzie Armitstead who won the first medal in the London 2012 Olympics, we also have a lot of work going on at grass-roots level. My constituent Joseph Cullen is working very hard to get ordinary people cycling. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is as important to get ordinary people cycling as it is to train Olympians of the future?

Norman Baker: I entirely agree. As one Member said earlier, cycling must be for everyone. It is the Government’s intention to make sure that that message goes out loud and clear.

Ben Bradshaw: Will the Minister give way?

Norman Baker: I will, briefly.

Ben Bradshaw: The Minister said a moment ago that this is the most pro-cycling Government ever. What is his response to the disgraceful comments of the Communities Secretary that cycling was an obsession of the elite and that he wanted to make a free-for-all for motorists to park on double yellow lines?

Norman Baker: I think the Communities Secretary is capable of answering for himself.
	I want to mention the funding arrangements which this Government has put in place. If people believed some of the earlier comments, including from the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), they would think that this Government had not been funding cycling. That is quite untrue. In fact, we are funding cycling more than the Labour Government did. Between 2005 and 2010 the previous Administration spent £140 million—£200 million with match funding—on cycling. Under this Administration, £278 million—£375 million with match funding—will be spent in our five-year period. That is almost double what the Labour Government spent in the previous five years. When Opposition Members complain that there is not enough funding, a little more humility would not come amiss.
	I entirely agree with the comments made by hon. Members that it is important not to neglect rural areas. That is why the Government has committed £600 million to the local sustainable transport fund, which equates to £1 billion with match funding. That local sustainable transport fund has funded 96 projects, 94 of which have cycling elements. A further £100 million capital and £78 million revenue funding has been allocated for the LSTF in 2015-16. We have seen £44 million committed throughout this Parliament to support cycle training for schoolchildren. I might say to the shadow Secretary of State that the first thing we did on cycling as a coalition Government was to commit to Bikeability funding throughout the whole Parliament to give the certainty which she says she wants.
	In addition to all that, £159 million has been announced since the beginning of 2012—£94 million to increase cycling in eight cities and four national parks, £20 million to deliver safer junctions outside London, £15 million to enable cycle parking at rail stations, £15 million to provide more safe cycling links between communities and £15 million for junction safety in London. In times of plenty, the allocation to cycling measures was £200 million. In times of hardship, we have had £370 million from this coalition Government.

Hugh Bayley: I am concerned that much of the money spent on cycling measures under the previous Government and the present one is spent badly because the planners and engineers who design road systems do not understand cycling well enough. Will the Minister meet the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Town
	Planning Institute and others to try to create a professional qualification for cycling planners, and then to insist that local authorities use such people in designing their systems?

Norman Baker: The local sustainable transport fund schemes—there are 94—were all subject to expert analysis, including by those from local authorities and others who know about cycling, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it would be helpful for him and I to meet particular people, I would be happy to do so. He should phone my office and we will sort it out.
	I also want to mention a key recommendation that, to my surprise, was not touched on much in the all-party group’s report: cycle-proofing—although the shadow Secretary of State referred to it in her comments. The “Action for roads” Command Paper, published in July this year, made it plain that we want to cycle-proof our road network and minimise situations where major roads are a barrier to walkers and communities. All new roads and improvement schemes on the strategic road network will be designed with cyclists, as well as motorists, in mind. There is almost £5 million for 14 schemes identified in the strategic road network where the Government will fund significant improvements to remove barriers to cycling, with a further £15 million for such improvements in 2015-16. Officials are currently planning a conference on cycle-proofing roads later this year, which will involve council chiefs, directors of highways and planning, representatives from local economic partnerships and national parks and so on to ensure that we have the expertise and can work out how best to cycle-proof our roads, streets and communities.

Steve Brine: I know that the Minister did not want to move on without responding to my challenge in respect of junction 9 of the M3 and the Highways Agency, so I just wanted to give him a chance to do so.

Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting that point into the debate twice. I do not have a specific answer, but I will write to him subsequently. Indeed, if there are any other specific comments that Members have made that I cannot respond to, I will try to do so in writing subsequently.
	We are looking at the feasibility of a new national cycle way to broadly follow the HS2 corridor, which would link people, communities and local stations to the countryside and tourist attractions and benefit those living along the corridor. We are looking for these opportunities to improve cycling.
	I also want to touch on the safety of cycling, which of course is very important. The Transport Secretary and others have made it clear that any death on the roads involving a cyclist is one too many. We are determined to take what action we can to minimise the number of cycling deaths. That is why I have made it possible for local authorities to install Trixi mirrors at junctions without having to apply to the Department for Transport and why my colleague the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has been so assiduous in trying to deal with the problems of HGVs and to ensure that some of the points mentioned by Opposition Members are properly dealt with through mirrors, cameras and so
	on. To pick up on a point the shadow Secretary of State made, I am happy to say that no incidents involving cyclists and semi-trailers have been reported since the trial began.

Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend may be aware that I have had discussions with some of the HGV trailer manufacturers and know that they would be very willing to see additional safety measures and happy to work with the Department to achieve that. Will he join me in welcoming that initiative and see how that can be progressed very quickly indeed?

Norman Baker: I certainly welcome that, and I welcome the constructive response we have seen already from the Freight Transport Association, for example. That comment is very welcome and I am sure that my colleague, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, is aware of that and can take it on board and move forward appropriately.
	As I said, any one death on the road is one too many. Figures for London show that between 2008 and 2012, 53% of all pedal cycle fatalities were a consequence of direct conflict with HGVs, so there is a serious issue that we are very much aware of, as I think is the Mayor. We are taking steps to deal with it through a number of changes. It is also important to note that cycling in London has increased by 173% since 2000, and figures for cycling deaths and injuries have to be borne in mind in relation to the big increase in cycling that has taken place.

Jane Ellison: On the point about HGV safety, tomorrow morning I am visiting the regeneration site at Battersea power station, where the developers, owners and constructors are running a specific day of cycle awareness training with HGV drivers and cyclists. Does the Minister welcome such moves where developers take responsibility for HGVs moving in and out of their sites? Perhaps that is a way forward.

Norman Baker: That is exactly the right response, and I hope that it will become common practice across industry and across the country.
	I want to respond to some of the comments made by Members. In the previous cycling debate, the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) called for the Prime Minister to lead and take action. The hon. Gentleman was very nice to me today but lamented the fact that I was, he implied, dealing with this without support. That is not the case. There is support from all my colleagues in the Department for Transport and from different Departments across Government, and the Prime Minister himself made a statement in August. That clearly indicates the importance that the Government as a whole attaches to the matter. If any colleagues across Government were not taking it seriously, I am sure that the Prime Minister’s appearance in August will ensure that they take it more seriously than they did previously.
	There have been a number of suggestions that we should have a cycling champion. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) talked about that. I am very sorry that he is no longer on the Front Bench, by the way. He has been a very good Minister in his time, and a shadow Minister as well—not just the Member for Poplar but a popular Minister. He asked whether I am the national champion for cycling. I hope
	that I am a national champion for cycling, but so are my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my other colleagues in the Department for Transport, and the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. We want to make sure that this is owned across Government by all Departments. The danger of having one person identified in the role is that others do not feel the need to participate in the same way. I am not particularly keen to use the word “tsar”, by the way. The history of tsars at the end of imperial Russia is not a happy one, and we can probably do without it.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for drawing attention to the health benefits of cycling. We used the World Health Organisation economic assessment tool in assessing the cycle city and national park bids and the grants we subsequently gave. She mentioned 20-mph speed limits. I hope that she will welcome, as others have, the fact that this Government have made it easier for local councils to introduce 20-mph limits, which I campaigned on for a decade before they finally became reality under this Government. She asked about enforcement, which several other Members properly raised. The hon. Member for Wimbledon and I had a meeting with Suzette Davenport, who is a lead member on this for the Association of Chief Police Officers. She has agreed to rewrite the guidance for ACPO on the enforcement of 20-mph limits, and I hope that that will appear before long.
	I have to say that there were a couple of churlish comments. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) complained about the Government’s approach. I should point out that she has had £10 million in two local sustainable transport tranches, £5.7 million through a cycle city ambition grant, and £1.24 million for cycle safety funding. That is £17 million for Newcastle and she was the most ungrateful Member here today. The second most ungrateful Member was the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who said that the Government were doing nothing and forgot to mention that the scheme at Brighton station that she identified—the cycle rail fund—and the cycle lanes on Old Shoreham road and Lewes road are paid for from the Government’s funding.
	I am delighted that this has been such a good debate and that so many people have turned up to contribute. I confirm that the Government takes this matter very seriously, and we will make further progress. In the spirit of coalition unity, let me say that I have something in common with Norman Tebbit—we both want people to get on their bikes.

Julian Huppert: It has been fantastic to have such a great debate with so many right hon. and hon. Members contributing. The passion expressed has been really fantastic. The support for the cross-party report, “Get Britain Cycling”, is very welcome and I am very pleased to see it.
	At our conference in two weeks’ time, my party will debate adopting this as part of our party policy and then in our manifesto. I hope that other parties will do the same, because it would be marvellous if at the next election they are all offering some serious improvements on cycling. For years—for decades—Governments have not done enough. We are doing more now but there is
	far more still to do. I hope that the support expressed in this debate will add extra weight to the call on all our parties for this Government and all future Governments to try to do their best to get Britain cycling.
	It is also fantastic that while so many right hon. and hon. Members have been here, outside a huge number—some 5,000—cyclists organised by the London Cycling Campaign have been showing their support for what we are doing and trying to help to get Britain cycling. I am pleased that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign has been involved in all that.
	I am really delighted that we have had this debate. I hope that it will give an impetus towards improving facilities for cyclists, and also for pedestrians and consequently for drivers and all other road users. I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”; endorses the target of 10 per cent of all journeys being by bike by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2050; and calls on the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual Cycling Action Plan and sustained funding for cycling.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Registrar of Public Lending Right) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 9 May, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	[Relevant document: First Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Scrutiny of the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Registrar of Public Lending Right) Order, HC 506.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Regulatory Reform

That the draft Regulatory, Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Free Movement of Workers

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 9124/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers; notes that the proposal seeks to prevent discrimination against EU nationals when seeking work in another Member State; further notes that this proposal is intended to facilitate the exercise of existing rights, in particular by requiring Member States to provide adequate judicial or administrative means of redress, to designate a body or bodies for promotion and support of equal treatment of workers and their
	family members, to encourage social dialogue and to disseminate information on free movement rights; and supports the Government’s approach of seeking to ensure that no EU legislation is adopted that creates new free movement rights or imposes unnecessary bureaucratic burdens.—
	(Nicky 
	Morgan
	.)
	Question agreed to.

CHARITABLE SUPPORT WORK ROMANIAN ORPHANAGES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Russell Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House an issue that has, surprisingly, been subject to very few debates over the years, namely the plight of Romanian orphans, children and young adults living in institutions and, in particular, the charitable support work for them over many years.
	Few of us will ever forget the awful images in the 1990s of the horrors of Romanian orphanages, which were exposed following the collapse of the Ceausescu regime in 1989. The world was stunned by the television and newspaper images of half-starved, abandoned children tied to their beds. Aid agencies rushed to help and Governments throughout the world condemned what they saw. I am sure that many Members will know someone who answered the call to offer help to those children and young adults. One such person was a constituent of mine, a lady called Linda Barr.
	Although we called the institutions in the images orphanages, the reality was that most of the children in them had parents, but those parents were simply not able to afford to feed and care for their large families. The aim of the Ceausescu regime had been to increase the population of Romania to 30 million by 2000, with women required by law to have at least four children—a number that was later increased to five. Families who had fewer than three children were taxed heavily. That policy weighed heavily on the Romanian nation, and the long-lasting consequences of such a policy cannot easily be rectified.
	The orphanages were staffed by the minimum number of people required to keep the institution operational, but no consideration was given to the developmental needs of the children. Children in the institutions grew up without any mental stimulation or physical activity, without any loving human touch and often without sufficient food, clothing or health care.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I spoke to him earlier about my intervention. He has mentioned the number of charitable organisations. Does he recognise the good work done by churches in my constituency, such as my own Baptist church in Newtownards, and many others across the United Kingdom, which made immense contributions to help the Romanian children?

Russell Brown: Absolutely. I fully recognise that. That is not really a debate I wish to have this evening, but I recognise everything that was done by communities throughout the UK and further afield. Charities from other countries wanted to help the plight of Romanian children and young people at the time and they still do that work.
	For the young adults, the consequence of growing up in state institutions has been an even more difficult adult life. Upon reaching adulthood, most of them were unprepared for jobs or higher education. Some former orphans joined the military or entered the secret service
	and some attempted to fit into society, but most found themselves homeless. It should be recognised that post-Ceausescu, great improvements were made by the authorities and support for the children and young adults came from many parts. The improvements were made possible in no small measure by the work of the many organisations and charities that developed within Romania and across the world, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned.
	In my area, Linda Barr, who has worked with children and young adults in Romania for more than 20 years, along with her colleagues in the health service, set up the Dumfries Hospitals Romanian Support Group and then established the RAP Foundation. I know that the Minister is very much aware of the work of the foundation. It has successfully developed direct working links with colleagues in Romania to advance the education of children and young people with disabilities in the country, particularly in Bucharest, and to relieve their suffering and distress.
	In July 2007, the foundation officially opened its first supported accommodation apartment, providing a family-style home for four young people: Aurel, Florin, Razvan and Virgil. The foundation works with its project partner, the Romanian Angel Appeal, and other agencies to support the apartment and to develop similar projects.
	For 17 years, the foundation has arranged for children and young adults from Bucharest to go on seaside holidays of a lifetime on the Black sea coast. However, as the Minister is aware from the correspondence that I have sent him, this year’s holiday was in danger of not going ahead. It would appear that because concern was expressed by members of the foundation and others over the treatment of a number of young people with disabilities in the Gheorghe Serban district of Bucharest, the general directorate of social assistance and child protection of Sector 2 sought to put in place what can only be described as a number of hurdles to prevent this year’s holiday from taking place. It delayed agreeing to the holiday to the extent that the original bookings had to be cancelled. It demanded that the RAP Foundation be registered as a “provider of social assistance”, even though its work as a sponsor does not require such registration and despite its long-standing collaboration with the Romanian Angel Appeal, which is a well-known non-governmental organisation working in Romania that is registered as a “provider of social assistance”. The general directorate also sought to block members of the RAP Foundation from attending the holiday as volunteers.
	Due to the foundation’s persistence and, I have no doubt, the work of the British embassy in Romania after I raised the issue with the Minister, a way was found to allow the holiday to go ahead this year. I place on the record my thanks to the Minister and the British ambassador and his staff for their assistance. This year’s holiday was another major success for the young people, but it was not without its difficulties. Sadly, this is the second year in which the RAP Foundation has found the authorities in Sector 2 unwilling to be co-operative. It saddens me to say that when the young people eventually set off on this year’s holiday, the comment was made that it seemed as if it was the first time that many of the young people had been out in the fresh air since the previous year’s holiday.
	I recognise that the mayor and the director general of Sector 2 are upset and angry at the documentary shown on Romanian Antena 3, “The Irrecuperable Romania – Bucharest”, which was broadcast on national television in May of this year, but there was absolutely no need for them to accuse members of the RAP Foundation, through media releases, of having “occult intentions” or to say that
	“the Scots should go home and look after their own sick people”.
	I do not know many of those involved with the RAP Foundation, but I assure the Minister that I would trust those I do know implicitly. Two local people, Linda Barr and John Glover, have both received awards through the honours system for their charitable work.
	Former employees of one of the homes told members of the foundation that severely disabled young people are kept tied to their beds, and many are showing signs of severe malnutrition. Beatings and other forms of physical and mental abuse were also described—I really thought we had got past what we witnessed under Ceausescu. Examples are given of residents lying on their backs and being force fed by nurses. Patients’ mouths are open while food is stuffed in so quickly that they try desperately to resist. Two female residents have recently died of pneumonia in the institution after allegedly being denied emergency medical care.
	After having viewed what was televised, Professor Michael Kerr, professor of learning disability, psychiatry and honorary consultant in neuropsychiatry at Cardiff university, provided his independent professional opinion:
	“All the individuals with a disability seen on camera appear to be seriously, most probably dangerously, underweight. Such a degree of underweight needs urgent assessment as it is associated with a very high mortality. As all the individuals show such underweight there must be serious concerns that the cause is systemic. That is related to dietary practices or environmental stress.”
	Professor Kerr recommended an urgent assessment be made by specialists outside the current care team and said:
	“In fact, refusal of entry to such assessors would simply increase the gravity of my concern”.
	The RAP Foundation has funded all the work it has undertaken in Romania over these years, and has never at any time sought financial support from the authorities in Romania. It is funded through charitable donations raised from people of all ages who live in Scotland and south Wales. What is so distressing is that after the Ceausescu regime, the country made significant progress, so much so that in September 2005, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, the European Parliament’s rapporteur for Romania, went so far as to claim:
	“Romania has profoundly reformed—”
	from top to bottom—
	“its child protection system and has evolved from one of the worst systems in Europe to one of the best.”
	In an accession report published prior to November 2005, European Union observers were positive regarding the child care system in Romania.
	The Minister has indicated that he would be prepared to meet representatives of the RAP Foundation, and I suspect they would wish to take up such an offer if it is made. The foundation is delighted at the progress that it and so many other charities have been part of over the years, to bring a better quality of life to children and
	young people resident in those orphanages and institutions. It is worrying, however, that after all the progress, excellent work and support experienced in other parts of Romania, the Gheorghe Serban sector is not being as open as many organisations would wish it to be.
	This debate was secured by me with a degree of reluctance, and I recognise that our Government have no control over what happens in institutions in any other country. I hope, however, that the Minister will recognise that all that is being requested by many charities, and the RAP Foundation in particular, of authorities in the Gheorghe Serban sector of Bucharest, is for them to be open and allow an independent team to look at what is happening within the facilities under their control. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope he will be in a position to report back to the House on this matter in the coming months.

David Lidington: I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) for raising the important issue of conditions in Romanian orphanages. You will know, Mr Speaker, that the promotion and protection of human rights are at the heart of UK Government foreign policy objectives. All hon. Members would agree that orphaned children have a right to be cared for appropriately and with compassion, and that we in government should do what we can to support work to that end. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about the efforts made by the British embassy and the team under Ambassador Martin Harris. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are relayed to the team.
	The hon. Gentleman remarked on the fact that we first became aware of the unspeakable conditions that prevailed in Romanian orphanages in 1989, when the regime of President Ceausescu was overthrown. Thousands of children lived in appalling conditions in state institutions. It is good to be able to say that, since that time, a large number of substandard institutions have been closed, and that many of the remaining institutions have improved both their services and their standards. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is work to be done, but we should acknowledge the progress that has been made and the part played in that by British charities, which have actively worked towards such improvements in Romania ever since the revolution.
	Charities from this country have provided support and facilities to Romanian orphanages, and have helped to raise awareness, both nationally and internationally, of the poor conditions still encountered there. I shall refer to the list of such charities. The Hope and Homes charity for children has its largest programme in Romania, and has worked with national and local authorities there to improve services in certain orphanages, and to close substandard ones where appropriate. It has worked with the Romanian Government and its partners, Absolute Return for Kids. Hope and Homes has pledged to end institutionalised care for children in Romania by 2020.
	Other British charities operating in the field include SOS Children’s Villages, the Foundation for the Relief of Disabled Orphans—FRODO—Children in Distress and Muzika. FARA has worked in Romania since 1991.
	I was delighted to see that FARA’s chairwoman, Jane Nicholson, was awarded an MBE earlier this year for her work in Romania.
	Other charities operate to help not only orphaned children but children more widely within Romania. Those charities include The Little People, which helps children with cancer; Hospices with Hope, which has been building palliative care facilities; Light into Europe, which works with the blind; and Nightingale’s, which works with orphaned children and young adults who have HIV. That is just a snapshot; it is not an exhaustive list of what the British charity sector does in Romania. Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne for her energy and dedication in championing at the highest level the fight to improve conditions for children in Romania.
	The UK Government, too, are active. We have supported and worked with the Government of Romania to improve conditions in their state-run facilities for both vulnerable children and adults. To give a few examples, our embassy in Bucharest, with Romania’s National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights, has facilitated workshops for 90 practitioners from all over Romania on handling disabled children in their care. We have also helped to foster links between Romanian and British non-governmental organisations through a networking event held at the Romanian Prime Minister’s office. The fact that the Prime Minister of Romania was willing to host such an event indicates that the Romanian Government, at the highest levels, recognise that there have been and continue to be problems with the conditions for children in at least some Romanian orphanages, and that the Romanians are determined to continue to drive through further improvements.
	Earlier this summer, the Romanian Ministry of Labour, through its national agency for social inspection, carried out an inspection of 51 neuropsychiatric recovery and rehabilitation centres throughout Romania. As part of that exercise, it visited the two facilities with which the RAP Foundation has had such difficulties, including the Gheorghe Serban centre. Gheorghe Serban received 19 specific recommendations for improvement from the Romanian inspectorate, including the need to provide more space for patients and more nutritious food. The inspector’s report says that the centre is currently undergoing maintenance to improve living conditions. I understand, too, that the state secretary from the Romanian Ministry of Labour visited the centre in June this year and was made fully aware of the situation.
	Let me turn to the work of the RAP Foundation and start by paying tribute to the dedication and leadership that Linda Barr has shown over so many years. If the hon. Gentleman would like to bring a delegation from the RAP Foundation to see me, he would be welcome to do so. RAP works to reduce social exclusion, to support higher standards of care and to increase the skills and opportunities for disadvantaged children and young adults in Romania, particularly in the capital city, Bucharest. The Government appreciate enormously the RAP Foundation’s work in two care facilities in Bucharest Sector 2.
	For many years, the RAP Foundation, together with its Romanian partner, the Romanian Angels Association, has been taking disadvantaged children and young adults on much needed and very well received summer breaks to the Romanian Black sea coast. I was concerned when
	I heard earlier this year of the possibility that the local authorities might refuse permission for this year’s holiday to take place. I subsequently instructed the British ambassador to meet the local mayor as a matter of urgency. That meeting took place on 24 July, and on the following day the mayor granted permission for the holiday to go ahead. I was very pleased to hear that Linda Barr wrote to the British Embassy on 26 August to say that their party was at the Black sea enjoying the holiday, and was in high spirits.
	I know too, as the hon. Gentleman has told the House, that the RAP Foundation has had difficulties with Social Services—the DGASPC—in Bucharest Sector 2, in gaining access to two facilities, especially the Gheorghe Serban centre. Under Romanian law, services within state institutions can be provided only by a registered provider of social care. That means that RAP has no legal right to insist on access to these institutions. As the hon. Gentleman said, it has traditionally worked through its Romanian partner, the Romanian Angels Association. It is also the case that while the central Government in Romania have responsibility for overall policy regarding state institutions, including orphanages, individual institutions fall under the responsibility of local government within Romania. For that reason our judgment is that difficulties are usually best tackled, at least in the first instance, by direct contact between our embassy team in Bucharest and the local mayor and others at local authority level, because they are the people who have direct responsibility for the surveillance and management of those Romanian state institutions.
	I have asked the British Embassy to continue to support the work of RAP and to try to mediate dialogue between the foundation and the social services in Bucharest Sector 2. I very much hope that, following the successful holiday this year, the relationship will be put back on the right footing and developed further in an effective manner, and above all in a way that provides the greatest possible opportunities to the children, whose interests should lie at the heart of all our considerations.
	In conclusion, I am aware that the scale and complexity of the problem of Romanian orphanages have been reduced significantly since the 1989 revolution, but there is still cause for concern about the standards of care in some Romanian facilities and a lot still to be done. The efforts of the Romanian Government—combined with the contribution and support of British and international charities, and with the encouragement of the international community to improve the situation—remain necessary to ensure that the work to drive up standards continues.
	I would like once again to thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway for raising this important issue and to reassure him plainly not only that we will continue to monitor the situation closely, but that we stand ready to take action where it is needed, at whatever level in Romania is most appropriate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.